Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I thank the Government for providing an opportunity once again to discuss the problems facing London and to place on record some of the difficulties that we are experiencing. It is an apposite time to discuss these issues because yesterday the Government received a heavy vote of no confidence since people believe that their total strategy is wrong. The Government can now begin to understand that people realise that their economic policy is a disaster. It has overtaken the country and in the end it will bring us to our knees.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I must go on because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I do not want to take too long.
The Government strategy goes back 50 years or more. Nothing in Tory policy is new. In London we are being brought to our knees because resources are being reduced to such an extent that life in the capita] is becoming almost impossible. Unemployment is soaring. If Government Members query that, I can give an example from my constituency. On 30 April 1979 unemployment in the Hackney and Shoreditch area was 5,680. On 30 April 1980 it was 7,330. That is an increase of 1,650, or 23 per cent. I do not know why the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) should think that that is funny).

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but I shall not.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has accused me of laughing, which I was not doing. Now he refuses to give way to allow me to explain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): It is not for me to say whether an hon. Member should give way, but since the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) made an accusation against the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) it might be as well if he gave way for a moment.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West appeared to be making observations from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way to him so that he can explain why he thinks that the unemployment figures are amusing.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to an expression on my face and to remarks which I did not make. My visual expression was caused by the hon. Gentleman's failure to comment on the massive rate increases imposed by Labour-controlled authorities. They are relevant to the growth in unemployment. In Lambeth rates have risen by 50 per cent. for two consecutive years. That is one reason why businesses cannot employ as many people as they used to do.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he has explained himself. Reaction to rate increases came last night when the votes in the country were counted. Many of the boroughs which have imposed heavy rate increases because of a reduction in Government resources have returned councillors with huge Labour majorities. The hon. Gentleman's comments are invalid.
Unemployment in London is soaring and yet the Government pin their faith on enterprise zones. For years there were enterprise zones in the East End of London. They were called sweat shops. In 1936 legislation had to be introduced to


control those zones. It was called the Factories Act. It therefore seems extraordinary that the Government are taking us back to the time when urgent action had to be taken to protect the workers. So, what is new in enterprise zones?
We are told that the Government will get rid of council housing in London and will leave the provision of homes to private landlords. But that was how it was before. Before the Second World War there was very little council housing in London, and such as there was was owned mainly by the London County Council. The drive to provide council homes became necessary because of the anarchy in housing in London at the time.
There was little or no rent control, but it became important to develop it because tenants had to be protected against shortholds—they were called furnished accommodation and all sorts of names, but they were shortholds. The tenants were at the mercy of the landlords because there was no alternative form of housing. The Government are therefore taking us back to the time when landlords had no problems in getting rid of their tenants. Rent control was brought in to try to protect tenants from that because families were being put on the streets.
I keep asking the Government what will happen, if their shorthold proposals get through, to a family which at the end of its shorthold tenancy is unable to renew it because the landlord wants too much rent or because it is not convenient for the landlord to renew. The landlord will have the inalienable right to put the tenant out. Who do the Government suggest will house that family? There will be no council houses to accommodate families who are put on the street.
The Government want to bring back pirate buses and private operators to solve the transport problems in London. London had all that when the London Passenger Transport Board was set up in 1934 to overcome the anarchy and chaos that then existed. The Government want to take London back to the position of not having a good service of public transport. The board was established then to remedy that situation
The environment is being destroyed by itinerants, but the Government stand by and do nothing. They are leaving the London boroughs to cope with the problem and to pay for the clearing up. AH the boroughs can do is shuffle the problem around.
We are witnessing a deliberate rundown of the health services. In my constituency hospitals are being closed in order to save about £1·25 million. Yet it was announced last night that £2 million is to be paid as a transfer fee to get someone to run the steel industry. That is more than it would cost to reopen one of the closed hospitals in my constituency.

Mr. David Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is not advancing a sound argument about British Steel. In the last year of the Labour Government some £700 million—the cost of running the National Health Service for five weeks—was spent on British Steel's losses. If, at a cost of £2 million, this gentleman manages to do for British Steel what he has done for other concerns with which he has been associated, will that not spread enormous benefit in the country?

Mr. Brown: The operative word is " if". The Government's track record is not very good, and nor is that of the Secretary of State for Industry. He was responsible for the disaster of London government and the disastrous reorganisation of the Health Service. That record does not lead me to believe that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment is any good. I believe that he is wasting £2 million which could have kept open a hospital in my constituency.
The Government have failed to get to grips with primary health care in London. In my constituency it is almost non-existent, yet plans are still formulated in the Health Service on the assumption that an adequate primary care service is available and that the general practitioner service is flourishing. Neither of those assumptions is correct.
The latest development of the Department of Health and Social Security shows its attitude to the people of London. It has declared war on geriatric patients. Let me read a memorandum which is


now being circulated in my constituency. It states:
 Our hospitals appear to have varying success in using the pocket money of long-stay patients to buy clothes, in order to supplement the inadequate allocation from the NHS budget. There is no reason why patients' pocket money should not be used for this purpose, so long as some permission is obtained. If a patient is capable of giving permission, there is no difficulty in the patient being asked and persuaded. If the patient is not capable and there are no relatives administering the patient's affairs, there is no problem because the court of protection can be asked for permission and apparently regularly gives it. The complication is where the relatives are looking after the money. What I suggest there is that you, the doctor or the social worker should write to the relatives a persuasive letter, explaining that pocket money is for patients' comforts, that it is not being spent and that clothing would be a good thing on which to spend the money. You should emphasise that it will be personal clothing with the patient's name on it, not to be used by other patients, and that the relatives will not be expected to wash the clothes.
We have reached the bottom of the barrel if the Department has to take from long-term geriatric patients their £1 a week pocket money in order to pay for their clothes. It is not even true that these patients get their clothes back. I have raised with the Minister evidence of where in my constituency these patients have been buying clothes and not getting them back. I have raised these matters with the Minister, and the people of London are entitled to know that he is taking an interest.
I hope that the debate today will at least make it clear to the Government that London needs additional resources. It does no good to take nearly £250 million from the rate support grant, and it does no good to slash London's housing improvement programmes by half. Letting the GLC divest itself of its strategic housing responsibilities will not help to house London families. Breaking up the ILEA will be of no benefit to the people of London.
We in London need an adequate rate support grant, a housing programme geared to the problems, health services that can cope with the demands made upon them and urban aid to help the development of the voluntary services, industry and jobs. We want a prosperous London and a city that we can be proud of. Surely the Government can understand that. Time is running out. The people of London are entitled to expect action. I

hope that after today the Government will begin to move in these matters.

Mr. John Hunt: It is now six months to the day since we last debated London in this House. I hope that we have now established a pattern of regular discussion of London's problems, a development for which the Government deserve praise and credit. Of course, the other great cities of Glasgow, Liverpool and Birmingham also have their problems of health, housing, transport and education. However, it is the sheer scale of the problems in London which makes our capital unique and underlines the value and importance of regular debates of this kind.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referred to the problems of unemployment in London. I do not want in any way to minimise the problems which exist, particularly in specific pockets within the capital. But it is fair to claim that the Government have taken a number of steps since coming into office to revive and encourage business activity in the capital. For example, office development control has been scrapped—that was done in August last year—the Location of Offces Bureau, which played a leading role in the previous policy of dispersal from London has also been abolished, and further Civil Service dispersal from London has been virtually halted.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge and recall that he and I led a deputation to the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, urging that specific step, which was never taken during the years of Labour government. However, the Conservative Government have responded quickly and effectively to the representations that we made. As a result, further Civil Service dispersal from London was stopped. I believe that will help to retain jobs in London and to provide further opportunities.
The Urban Development Corporation, which has been established by the Government, should do much to revive jobs and investment in the dockland area, which has been neglected and run down for so long. As to enterprise zones, to try to equate them, as the hon. Gentleman did, with sweat shops, seems to me to reduce the level of serious debate in this House to sheer farce.

Mr. Mellor: It particularly distressed me that the Labour Party should say that, having regard to the fact that in the borough of Wandsworth, when Labour was in control of the council, 30 per cent. of the industrial base disappeared. Yet the Labour Party now pours scorn on the proposal to make use of sites in north Wandsworth, in respect of which we have applied for the creation of an enterprise zone, which have lain derelict and have become a monument to Socialist waste since the War.

Mr. Hunt: I fully accept and agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I fear that the Labour Party's reaction to the suggestion of enterprise zones merely reflects a partisan, political attitude rather than an attitude which is geared to the real needs of London.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was also critical of the shorthold proposal in the Housing Bill. I was sorry to hear that reaction, because I believe that that proposal represents the only real chance which people such as teachers, students and nurses—who will never acquire a sufficient number of points on a council housing list to be accommodated—will have of obtaining short-term accommodation in London. I fear that the Labour Party's attitude to that proposal—particularly its pledge to repeal that provision—may well torpedo the proposal and deprive people such as those whom I have mentioned of housing accommodation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Was not that sort of wringing of hands exactly the response which emerged from the Conservative Party in 1957 in respect of the Rent Act? Did not that lead to immense disaster in London—the disaster of Rachmanism and everything else associated with it? Is not this proposal a further prescription for disaster?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman takes us a long way back into history. His remarks relate to 25 years ago, and I do not believe that one can make any comparison at all between the Rent Act of those days and the very much more modest shorthold proposal which has now been put forward. This is something of an experiment which deserves encouragement rather than the kind of negative criticism which it has met from the Opposition.
Those of us who were born and brought up in London, and who live and work here, have over many years sensed a discernible decline in the standards and standing of our capital, and it is to the quality of life in London that I should like to address the rest of my remarks. In a debate only two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) made some scathing comments about the state of London, and appeared to pin the blame almost exclusively upon the tourists who visit our capital. In my view, that is a gross over-simplification. It is quite unfair to use the tourists as a scapegoat for the state of London.
After all, it was not the tourists who designed and built the drab and dreary buildings which sprang up in the postwar years and which now litter our landscape. It was not the tourists who funked the planning of a really effective road system for London. It is not the tourists who have tolerated and condoned the squalor and decay of Piccadilly Circus and its surrounding area. Those who snipe and sneer at our overseas visitors should pause to think of the substantial subsidy which they provide for things such as London Transport, the London theatre and our museums and art galleries.
Without the tourists, that money would have to come from the pockets of London's taxpayers and ratepayers. Each year, between 3 million and 4 million overseas visitors attend plays and concerts in London and spend more than £20 million at the box office. I suggest that that should be put on the credit side of the London tourism balance sheet.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Speaking under the tourist hat, may I point out that there are 8· million foreign visitors in London alone, who produce more than £2,000 million a year in revenue for London and its City. That is the most recent figure from the London Tourist Board. As to theatres, without the money which flows not only from the United States but elsewhere, one would not be able to keep the London theatre going. It is wholly dependent upon that, and upon a great many other positive facets.
In dealing with the cleanliness point, will my hon. Friend make it plain that the recent problem of the rats and so on in Piccadilly arose from the strike by NUPE and others? No doubt that matter can


be dealt with quite quickly and easily in the future.

Mr. Hunt: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. I accept his figure with regard to the number of tourists. I know that the current figure is about 8· million. I was referring to those who attend plays and concerts, which, unhappily, is not the whole number, although it is a growing proportion of those who come to London. I believe that the GLC was absolutely right to point out in its recent policy statement on tourism that tourism is a major contributor to the wealth and well-being of London. That should be more widely accepted and understood.
The quality of life in London also depends upon the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Police in enforcing the law and fighting crime in our streets and homes.
In the wake of the current siege in Kensington, I am sure that the people of London would like to say how thankful and grateful they are for the job which the police carry out. This debate is an appropriate occasion on which to express that gratitude. While there is always that small but vociferous minority which is eager to pick upon and exploit the occasional error or lapse in the ranks of the Metropolitan Police, those who criticise in that way would do well to look at the police forces in New York, Paris and Rome and compare their methods and tactics with those in London. Therefore, I speak as one who admires and applauds our Metropolitan Police force.
However, there is one aspect of its activities which concerns me at present. I detect a growing trend for police in London and elsewhere to stop and harass young people not simply young blacks, but young people as a group, particularly those on motor bikes or scooters who may have unconventional dress or hairstyles. If that continues, it will lead to antagonism and alienation on a wide scale.

Mr. Bryan Magee: Already—if you want it.

Mr. Hunt: Yes, it has already started, and if it continues, it will be a source of growing concern to the community as a whole. The fight against crime and violence in London must be a combined effort by the police and the public. As a community, we cannot afford to have

groups of people remaining on the sidelines in the continuing war against the thug and the criminal because of what they regard as police unfairness to them. In other ways the police are doing splendid work among young people—through juvenile bureaux, their work in schools and their involvement with youth clubs. However, that good work could be undermined by a few over-zealous officers, and I hope that the Commissioner, who in his latest report on the work of the Metropolitan Police referred to the need for them to
 win the hearts and minds 
of young people, will give the order to his men to cool it in their treatment of young people in London.
The quality of life in London also depends upon preserving the institutions of character and distinction within our capital. I give two examples of institutions that are currently under threat. One is the Jubilee Hall at Covent Garden—a building of considerable architectural interest which is now being developed by a few dedicated local volunteers as a sports and recreation centre. It is serving a community in desperate need of such facilities. I and other hon. Members have had the opportunity of seeing the marvellous work that is being done there.
I acknowledge that the GLC maintains that the retention of the hall is not a viable proposition and that it is now proposing the incorporation of some sports facilities in the development. However, there is a strong case for urgent intervention by the Secretary of State in the matter, and possibly for a public inquiry to be held.
Secondly, there is the case of the Westminster hospital, which was raised in an Adjournment debate this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
I am sure that the plea that he made is endorsed by all hon. Members. The uncertainty must be resolved as soon as possible. This hospital and medical school is part of the Pimlico community. It is also a centre of excellence and international repute. I cannot believe that it is part of the policy of a Conservative Government to destroy such a valuable part of our medical heritage.
There have been suggestions in the press recently that the Westminster hospital might be saved and become a sort of show case for British medical equipment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On the Select Committee we have been considering the question of Westminster hospital only this week. There is no question of its being a show case of any kind. We seek to retain Westminster hospital as an effective hospital. The children's hospital may be telescoped into it, but all these matters are merely at the suggestion stage. There is not the remotest chance of the Government making the Westminster hospital a show case.

Mr. Hunt: I am interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend's reaction, but I am not quite sure with what authority he speaks in these matters. He is not a member of the Government——

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is right for my hon. Friend to say that, but these matters are under discussion and are a matter of evidence to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. There is no suggestion from Conservative or Labour Members that the Westminster hospital should become a show case. That is not even Lord Annan's approach. We can safely say that Westminster hospital will be effectively used.

Mr. Hunt: I accept my hon. Friend's view. I was merely referring to an idea that was floated in the press. I do not know the source of that suggestion. However, it is an interesting option, and I hope that if such a development takes place eventually it will also mean that a show case could exist in conjunction with the existing school and hospital. Perhaps the Select Committee and the advisory group which is now being set up by the Minister can consider that. My point is that the uncertainty should be ended as quickly as possible.
This will be a wide-ranging debate, and that reflects the variety and diversity of life in London. It is that variety and diversity that hon. Members representing London contituencies must always seek to maintain and promote.

Mr. John Cartwright: I hope that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his comments.

However, I endorse his remarks about the relationships between the police and young people. It is an important issue. Certainly in constituencies such as mine the relationship between the police and young people from ethnic minority groups is a major problem. It is a problem which the police recognise, and one which must have a good deal more attention.
I wish to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), because I believe that the theme running through many contributions from Labour Members will be the need for more resources to be devoted to tackling the growing problems of London, particularly of inner London. It is fair to say that that was the policy of the previous Administration. There was a policy of positive discrimination in favour of the inner areas, and certainly in favour of inner London. Many of my hon. Friends and I had to defend that policy to hon. Members who represented constituencies in other parts of the country and did not see the importance of it.
That situation has now changed. For example, in the rate support grant settlement this year there was a positive switch away from inner urban areas towards the green shires and the leafy urban districts. It is no accident that almost all the inner London boroughs were net losers under this year's rate support grant settlement. However, it comes a little ill from those who imposed a rate support grant settlement of that sort to complain that rates in inner London have risen when they caused that increase by cutting down central Government support.
I wish to comment on the problem of housing because for most inner London Members it remains the major social problem. It dominates our Friday night surgeries. It is extraordinary that so many years after the end of the war, when the population of inner London has decreased to its present extent and when so much building has been carried out, we still have massive housing problems. Waiting lists seem to be longer now than they were two or three years ago.
I wish to quote the experience of my borough in relation to housing capital spending. My borough put in a bid under the investment programme for £34·3 million for housing capital spending. Its


allocation, together with all the tolerances available, was £22·9 million. That is a shortfall of over £11 million—a cut of almost a third in the programme that the borough wished to carry through. Over £19 million of Greenwich's housing expenditure is committed capital expenditure which it is impossible to avoid. That means that there must be substantial cuts in the uncommitted areas of housing capital spending. That will mean cuts in new house building. It will mean cuts in grants to the private sector.
The sad thing is that the axe has had to fall particularly on home loans. A borough such as mine—which has had a proud record of providing money for home ownership for over 50 years—has had to suspend its home loans programme because the Government will not allow funds to be made available for those who come to the local authority seeking help to buy houses. Also, the improvement programme will be substantially curtailed.
The net result of all this is that there will be fewer new homes in my borough and there will be fewer environmental improvements—or they will be slowed down and will take place over longer periods. It will be more difficult for many working people to buy their own homes.
The only response from the Government to this sort of problem is to talk about the shortholds—as if that will have any impact at all on the problems of young couples searching for their first home—or to point to the policy of selling council houses.
I accept that if one is a fairly affluent council tenant and one is offered a very good council house at a knock-down price—at up to 50 per cent. discount against the market value—that may very well be a good buy. But for many of my tenants, stuck in flats with small children, the good buy is a different sort of good buy—it is goodbye to their chance of ever having a home with a garden and the chance to bring up their children in reasonable housing

Mr. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, may I ask him whether he will agree that the shorthold concept relates particularly to the young executives coming into London, who have not yet reached the stage of

wanting to buy their own home and who want the right to get a tenancy for a period of months, or perhaps a year or so, at a reasonable price in the market in London? At the moment they are quite unable to do it. They are having to pay immensely high rents for short holiday lettings in older to get any accommodation. There is nothing for the young executive. Is that not the market that the Government will succeed in meeting in London through shorthold lettings?

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be some sort of self-appointed Greek chorus, commenting on every contribution made in the debate. He will have a very busy day if he keeps this up. But he has made the point that I was trying to make—better perhaps than I was able to make it. I am trying to show that for the young couple living in an inner London borough, who have lived there all their lives and want to go on living there, the shorthold system will do nothing to meet their immediate needs.
The policy of selling council houses provides not one extra home to meet the needs of those on the waiting list. In fact, it may worsen the position marginally, because those council tenants who would otherwise have been encouraged to move out and buy a home of their own in the private sector will now be encouraged to stay in the public sector and to take a public sector home out of the available pool.
Health has been a major problem for my constituents over the last few years. My area health authority is a losing authority under the infamous Resource Allocation Working Party formula. We have been through a period of painful rationalisation, as it is called by the administrators; the man in the street interprets the policy as one of cuts. There have been a number of reductions in services, there have been a number of closures, and there are still further threats to hospitals in my area.
There are continuing financial problems. My area health authority carries forward an overspend of about £1 million into this financial year. It has a cut of £1¼ million, dating back to 1976, which it was never able to make. It has been told that those two sums together must be saved in the current financial year—a saving of £2¼million.
On top of all that, we now have the problem of the cash limits, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set the cash limits at 14 per cent., even though, as he charmingly put it, he expected the inflation rate to be" a point or two higher than 14 per cent. We know that it has now reached 20 per cent. We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister that it will get higher before there is any improvement. This means that bodies such as area health authorities will have to pay more for the goods and the services that they need. They will be compensated only up to a level of 14 per cent, inflation. Where is the rest to come from? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it must be found in increased efficiency. That simply means still more cuts in health services, still more wards closed, and still more services reduced in order to meet the imposed cash limit.
I turn to the urban programme. There are fears in the inner urban areas that the Government are proposing additional cuts in the urban programme. A consultation document has gone out. The fact that there is no separate figure in the public expenditure Blue Book for the urban programme beyond the current financial year raises doubts in the minds of many people about the Government's policy on the continuation of the urban programme.
In my area and in many other inner London areas the urban programme has been of tremendous advantage in meeting a wide range of social problems. Cuts in that programme would have a substantial impact. It would mean the loss of jobs. It would affect not only local authorities' services but also the voluntary bodies.
The programme has been particularly geared to the needs of disadvantaged groups. In my area it has provided much needed services for the ethnic minorities, for the elderly, for the mentally ill, and for one-parent families. There is no chance in the current economic climate of these services being funded by local authorities if the urban aid programme is curtailed. I hope that the Minister, in his reply to the debate, will give us a clear and absolutely firm commitment that there will be no cuts in the urban

programme affecting the very important inner London areas.
I should like to mention one local problem which is also a problem for my colleagues in inner and outer London. I refer to the continuing problem of caravans. When one says " caravans ", people immediately have romantic ideas about gipsies and Romanies, with their beautifully painted caravans, towed by shire horses, and all the rest. The caravans I have in mind are not like that. They are very large and look very expensive. They are towed by very large and often very expensive looking motor cars. They are associated with very large and very dirty lorries. The occupants spend their time in totting and in metal breaking of all sorts. They have a charming habit of leaving the rubbish that is associated with their trades wherever their caravans happen to rest.
In my area the target sites have been council estates, roadside verges, and unused industrial sites in Abbey Wood, Thamesmead, and on the Woolwich industrial estate. Hon. Members may say " What about the Caravan Sites Act? ". My local authority has met its obligations under the 1968 Act. As long ago as 1971 it provided a site for 54 caravans—not the 15 that the Act requires, but 54. It cost over £300,000 to provide it. It was planned, in conjunction with the Gipsy Council, to meet the needs of travellers. It has acted as a magnet for a great many other travellers who now come into the area because the site is there.
Greenwich is now a designated area because it has met its obligations under the Act. But, unfortunately, we have discovered the hard way that designation gives no legal protection whatever. To take legal action under the Caravan Sites Act means going to the magistrates court. That involves a delay of anything up to two months. It also means having to take action against a named individual. It is incredible how many " D. Ducks" and " M. Mouses" live in caravans parked temporarily on sites in my constituency. It also means having to serve the summons personally on the head of the household. It is incredibly difficult to do that because he has always " gone down the road to see a man about a horse " and is never available when someone tries to serve a summons on him.
In my area and in others we are forced to use possession proceedings in the county court. That can take up to six weeks. An eviction notice is served, the caravan is moved, but it moves only a few hundred yards down the road to another site, and the process starts all over again, or it moves across the border into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

Mr. Tim Eggar: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that in the original draft of the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill the Government introduced clauses that would have speeded up repossession orders taken out by councils? Would the Opposition support the reintroduction of those clauses into the Bill at this late stage?

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I had intended to turn to that point shortly. I shall be happy later to take up his invitation. I accept that it is a very important issue.
Our experience of these travellers has been that they are totally irresponsible in their approach to any attempt to protect sites. Concrete posts are pulled out, oxy-acetylene cutters are used on fences, and very often lorries are deliberately driven through attempts to defend land against their invasions. It is costing a lot of money to try to protect open sites. It is costing the time of a lot of very busy local government officers who constantly trip backwards and forwards to courts attempting to get eviction orders.
The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) reminded us that some action was proposed. We had the Cripps report as long ago as 1977, which suggested an examination of the possibility of strengthening the legal enforcement powers for those authorities which had met their obligation to provide sites and had as a result been designated. That was forced on the Labour Government. I argued it very strongly with Ministers in the last Administration but not with any great success. I was pleased, therefore, to receive a letter dated 8 August 1979 from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who for some extraordinary reason combines responsibility for caravans with responsibility for sport. He said that changes were proposed in the en-

forcement powers to make them more effective. He referred particularly to court orders for eviction, and he said that such orders would be enforceable against both named and unamed occupants found on sites at the time orders were carried out. That seemed a step in the right direction.
I tabled a written question on 19 November 1979 asking when these powers would be brought forward. I received a brief answer saying simply "Very soon ". When I saw the original draft of the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, I saw that those powers were in it. When the Bill came back to this House in its second form, they had disappeared. Therefore, I tabled another parliamentary question on 5 February again asking when the powers would be brought forward. The answer was slightly longer but much less acceptable. It simply said " Not this Session ".
I cannot understand why there should be any dubiety on the part of the Government in bringing forward these powers. If they are not brought forward, I propose to table a new clause to the Bill, and I hope that it will have support on both sides of the House. This is a problem affecting the quality of life of many of my constituents. It affects industry in my constituency. Many of my constituents cannot understand why people of this kind can be allowed to flout the law when they are expected to abide by it.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply to this debate will indicate that he has decided to pull his finger out and do something about this serious problem.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I welcome the very fact that it takes place at all. It has become the custom in recent years to have a full day's debate on London rather than those contrived three-hour debates between 7 and 10 o'clock on the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill and the Greater London Council (Money) Bill. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) knows how unsatisfactory those debates were when we were on different sides of the House from those that we occupy at the moment, how contrived those debates were when hon. Members tried to keep in order on very narrow Bills, how hon. Members were encouraged to speak at length to


keep out other hon. Members, and all the other paraphernalia of absurd procedure. It is much better now that the House is becoming accustomed to a full day's debate on London at least once a year. There is an unwritten understanding between us that we do not drag out our contributions but allow plenty of opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak.
I should like to see London matters debated much more frequently on the Floor of the House. There have been suggestions in the past that there should be a Minister for London, and I have supported one view in the past that there should be a London Question Time. But those ideas probably will have to be put aside for the moment until the spectre of devolution arises, if it ever arises, again in our constitutional arrangements.
I want to touch upon the subject of education in London. I find it extraordinary that I cannot recall since coming to the House a debate on the education services of London. I do not think there has been one. London's education services have been debated in the context of national education or, very peripherally on the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, which normally contains a clause on the capital expenditure of the ILEA. So I make no apology for referring to the ILEA, which is the education authority responsible in my own area.
The House will know that I was asked by the Secretary of State to chair a Conservative Party committee on the ILEA which was to examine the constitutional and financial arrangements of the ILEA. We reported earlier this year. Following the receipt of that report, the Secretary of State set up an inter-departmental review to examine the administrative and financial arrangements of the ILEA.
It might be helpful to the House if I explained briefly why my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that in the inner London area the individual London boroughs, acting either separately or in conjunction with their neighbours, should be responsible for the education services within their boundaries. Three factors led us to that conclusion. The first was the lack of democratic accountability under the present system. The second was the lack of financial accountability. The third was the considerable disquiet felt

about the educational attainments of the ILEA.
As for the lack of democratic accountability, I think that everyone agrees that the constitutional arrangements for the ILEA are unique. The greatest defenders of the ILEA will not deny that.
The ILEA is composed of GLC inner London members and nominated members from the councils of the inner London boroughs. That creates a strange constitutional arrangement in that there are two elected bodies where some automatically go on to another body, the ILEA, but where the other elected body, the borough council, can nominate anyone whom it chooses. In fact, it can change the nomination at will. What is more, those two bodies, the Greater London council and the London borough council, are elected in different years. Therefore, it is not surprising that education issues are not put so directly to the electors of inner London and of London generally as they are in the rest of the country. They are mentioned in the GLC elections each four years. I do not deny that. However, they tend to get swamped in all the other issues of the GLC elections. Similarly, in the local borough elections in inner London, as we all know, education does not form any part because the individual London boroughs have no direct educational responsibilities.
This strange constitutional arrangement means that the ILEA draws its membership from two widely differing sources, each the subject of a different electoral process operating at a different time, on a different representational basis and with a different tenure of office. It is a unique constitutional arrangement.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Member accept that the idea that educational issues are swamped in the GLC elections applies equally to elections in other parts of the country? Is he aware, for instance, that at the time of the great Tory rebellion in Tameside, the leader of the Tameside council, a metropolitan authority with educational responsibilities, did not even mention education in his election address, even though he was leading the campaign against the comprehensive measures of the then Government?

Mr. Baker: I am not familiar with the Tameside example. The hon. Gentleman may be right. However, in London politics the decision-making process in education is rarely put clearly to the electors in inner London.
The second factor to which I referred just now related to the lack of financial accountability of the ILEA. Again, even the greatest defenders of the ILEA cannot deny that its financial position is unique. It determines its own budget. It decides what it spends. It sends the bill to the GLC, which cannot question it and cannot reduce it by a penny. The GLC then sends it on to the inner London boroughs by means of a precept which again cannot be questioned or denied.

Mr. Cartwright: I accept the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will not he accept that it applies even more strongly to the Metropolitan Police, over whom there is no democratic control? Will he apply the same argument to them?

Mr. Baker: No. That raises entirely different matters. If the hon. Gentleman is moving along the police line of argument to support my argument on education, I welcome a convert, but he should not expect me to convert back to him on the question of the police, because it raises fundamentally different matters.
The uniqueness of ILEA is that in every other education authority in the country there is a trade-off between the various conflicting demands of local government expenditure. That does not happen in London, where a ring is put around education. Education is taken out, and ILEA determines how much will be spent.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the precepting arrangement with regard to education in London is exactly the same as the precepting arrangement that applies outside London for county authorities, for any precepting authority as against a rating authority?

Mr. Baker: I accept that. Nonetheless, there is a trade-off between the conflicting demands of local authority money. There are debates about how much should be spent on education and how much should

be spent on the other services. My point is that that does not happen in London. Whatever changes may be made in ILEA, one might expect a change in its financial accountability. All reports over the years have tended to point to that.
Before coming to my third point, the disquiet about examination results, I should like to deal with ILEA'S reaction to my report. It reacted vigorously and questioned some of the statistics in the report. The way in which it did so shows that ILEA has a scant regard for statistics. Indeed, for it to use statistics in rebutting my statistics in the way that it has shows that it has fallen far short of the standards that one would expect of a major education authority.

Mr. Dobson: " Lies, damned lies and statistics ".

Mr. Baker: Professor David Smith, of ILEA, will publish a further report rebutting the ILEA statistics which rebutted mine. It is a marvellous battle. The leader of Wandsworth council, Mr. Chope, has put a paper before that council which also deals with the statistics.
I should like to draw attention to three matters. One is the size of the boroughs and whether they could provide a sufficent base for an education service. That is very important. In my report we took the age population of children from 5 to 19, which is the normal way to proceed when one is considering education services. This was, indeed, the figure that Sir Frank Marshall used in his report only 18 months earlier.
In its response, ILEA said that one must look only at actual school rolls in 1986. I contend that taking the age population 5 to 19 is correct. But even on the ILEA basis most of the Inner London boroughs, certainly those south of the river, will have a school roll—which does not include the further education services, which are essential when one is considering the full range of education services provided by a local education authority—in excess of that of many of the outer London boroughs. I suspect that the ILEA figures, which include Greenwich, 33,000 and Wandsworth, 27,000, are rather pessimistic.

Mr. Stevens: To endorse my hon. Friend's point, may I tell him that subsequent to the publication of the ILEA'S rebuttal of his figures it has announced


that the school roll figure was pessimistic, and that it will be higher than it stated in its response to him?

Mr. Baker: That does not in the least surprise me, because my experience of ILEA forecasting of school rolls is that it tends to massage its figures. When it was trying to destroy the grammar school in my constituency in 1971–72—and eventually succeeded—its forecasts of school population were absurdly and extravagantly wrong. It had the political motive of trying to show that there would be such an enormous number of school children in Marylebone and Westminster that the Marylebone grammar school had to be combined with the local comprehensive school, which is almost about to be closed, because the catchment area would require it. I am sure that those statistics were wrong when ILEA advanced them.
I suspect that ILEA's present forecasts of the number of school children are pessimistically low. I have evidence for that suspicion. Mr. Chope has looked at the GLC projection for Wandsworth's 5–19 population in 1986, which is 49,200 to 47,900. The figure in my report was 49,500–48,900, a difference of a few hundred. The Camden figure in my report was 21,000–21,900, whereas the latest GLC forecast is 22,700–23,000. Those higher figures show that the ILEA accusations are totally unfounded and that its forecasts are completely out of line with those of the GLC.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is not simply one of statistics? In a class of 30, one school may have children of 18 different nationalities, who have problems with the English language, numeracy, and so on, as a result, while other schools do not have such problems.

Mr. Baker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is part of ILEA'S argument that its social and education problems are unique, and that therefore ILEA must be retained. In a nutshell, that is what it says. I answer that argument by relating it to the money spent per pupil in inner London and in the other inner-city areas, which are not dissimilar. I know that in inner London

we have acute social problems, but so do Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Bradford. Some of them have as wide an ethnic variety as London does.
I wish that I could read all the figures into the Official Report, but Back Benchers are not allowed to insert statistics and figures in this way. However, the amount spent per pupil by ILEA in 1978 was £733 and the comparable figures for the other major cities were: Birmingham, £481; Leeds, £461; Liverpool, £547; Manchester, £602; Bradford—considered to have one of the greatest problems of ethnic minorities as regards linguistic abilities of schoolchildren—£450.
What value is being obtained for the money spent on the children of inner London? The education results are very disappointing. This is another area where ILEA has reacted shrilly against the statistics that I quoted. All of those statistics are nationally prepared; none was cooked up in Conservative Central Office.
The figures show that in the ILEA area 25 per cent. of all children left school without any qualification. ILEA has responded by saying " Look at the other inner cities". In fact, the only city with a worse result is Bradford. The comparable figures in some of the other cities were Sheffield, 19·4 per cent. and Manchester, 22 per cent. The national average is 16 per cent. I do not argue on the national average, because that includes country areas and suburban areas, and I am trying to base my argument on comparable inner-city areas.
There is disquiet about education attainment. The document to which I have referred is to be published so the statistics will be available. However. ILEA comes almost at the bottom of the list for passes at CSE level and passes at O-level at various grades, including the higher grades. It is fair to say that ILEA does rather better for passes at A-level. It does not reach the English national average, but it does better than many other inner cities.
When we talk about education attainment to the defenders of ILEA, they appreciate that the attainment is not very high. They soon say that passing examinations and getting O-levels and A-levels is not all that important. They claim that the important thing is to subject oneself to the education process, especially the enriching part of it. I maintain that the


statistics in my original report are fully justified.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that ILEA is entirely an inner city education authority and that he is making comparisons with authorities that cover not only inner city areas but suburban areas where there are fewer disadvantaged children?

Mr. Baker: ILEA includes areas that are not disadvantaged. It includes the beginning of the outer suburban areas. It includes part of my constituency, Chelsea, Kensington and parts of Camden. There is a social mix that is found in other inner cities. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman's argument holds water.
We came to the conclusion that education standards would be better if individual boroughs were responsible for education services. I know that that is contentious. I know that when we try to change something we have to fight considerable vested interests. I have had the flavour of what must face Labour Members when they try to change an institution. I hope that the inter-departmental ministerial committee that is considering ILEA will report soon and recommend a substantial change in the education arrangements for London.
I note that this week the London Labour Party has issued a manifesto. It has elected a new leader, Mr. Mackintosh. It has been rather a good week for appointing people with Scottish names to big jobs. Mr. MacGregor will have to deal with the ailing fortunes of the British Steel Corporation and Mr. Mackintosh will have to deal with the even greater problems of the ailing London Labour Party.
Its manifesto contains two proposals on which I shall comment briefly. I understand that it will enter the next election with the proposal that Labour will cut tube and bus fares by 25 per cent. and that by 1982–83 travel on the buses and tubes in London will be totally free. Every other inner city in the world has examined that proposition over the years and has come to the conclusion that it is a lunatic idea. I see that Labour Members are nodding in approval. If an idea as daft as that is put into the London Labour Party's manifesto, an idea which is discredited from the start, it is clear that it is lashing itself to a

totally dead idea. That only shows the predilection of the London Labour Party for morbidity.
The second issue in the London Labour Party's manifesto with which I seriously quarrel is the proposal to come out against the southern relief road in the development of Dockland. I have long been interested in that development. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will remember that we fought each other a long time ago in his constituency. Over the years I have been depressed to see the decline of dockland. The reasons have been well studied and reported and I shall not go into them now.
I am convinced of the need for better roads through East London. I am glad that the Government have agreed the northern relief road. I understand that it has reached the stage of planning approval contracts. It seems that it is agreed. I am sorry that the southern relief road has not been agreed and that the London Labour Party has come out against it. Surely the road is essential to bring back economic life to large parts of East London—for example, the Surrey Docks area, the Isle of Dogs and going beyond the Isle of Dogs and crossing the river again. I hope that the Government will look with greater favour upon the southern relief road.
I am not arguing for a particular route. That is an issue that must be left for local politicians and the locality concerned. However, I believe that the concept is essential for the development of dockland. I hope that the Government will take in hand and push forward the bringing into existence of the southern relief road.

Mr. Ted Graham: First, I congratulate the communities which had the opportunity and good sense yesterday to return Labour councils in the local elections. Throughout the country fed-up and dissillusioned ratepayers have given the thumbs-down sign to the Tory Government after one-year in office. In my constituency of Edmonton we shall have to wait a further two years before we can sling the Tories out of Enfield civic centre.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait much longer than that.

Mr. Graham: We shall see.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I seem to be joining some of my hon. Friends in the running of a Greek chorus. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that a swing of 3·9 per cent. is large enough to justify the exultation that he and other Labour Members have been indulging in? If it were the other way round, I do not think that he would be too worried. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are worried.

Mr. Graham: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman realises that the trend is all-important. If the Government have achieved such disillusionment in one year, in two years' time when my constituents will have the opportunity to vote, I am certain that they will sling the discredited local government out of Enfield civic centre.
For the past three years the Tory council in Enfield has used every device open to it to avoid fighting the election in two years' time on the boundaries that were drawn up by the Boundary Commission. It has been spending tens of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money. There has been no freeze or squeeze in fighting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. It has been continuing the fight against the views of ratepayers and responsible organisations and opinion in Enfield. It has dragged a tattered, sordid and antidemocratic case through the High Court, the Appeal Court and the House of Lords. It finally begged the Home Secretary to throw it a lifeline for 1982.
As I expected, and as the House would expect, the Home Secretary endorsed fully the proposals of the Boundary Com mission. He has left the Enfield Tory group to reflect that its rule will come to an end in 1982. The ratepayers have been left to reflect——

Mr. Eggar: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the council first went for a hearing in the High Court the judge concerned found in favour of Enfield council, and that on every occasion there was justification on constitutional and legal grounds for appeal right the way to the House of Lords? Does he accept that he has grossly exaggerated the amount that Enfield has been spending on the appeals system?

Mr. Graham: When the figures are dragged out of the Enfield council and its leaders I shall be prepared to agree with the hon. Gentleman if my charge that tens of thousands of pounds have been spent is not substantiated. The sums that the council has spent in its vain attempt to avoid the declarations of the Boundary Commission will surely amount to tens of thousands of pounds.
It is a fact that the Boundary Commission made proposals and that the Enfield council fought and lost. The High Court listened and Enfield council won. The Appeal Court listened and Enfield council lost. The House of Lords listened and Enfield council lost. The Home Secretary listened and Enfield council lost. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not think that a score of five to one is a trouncing, there are many others who share my view.
I am confident that the people of Enfield and of Edmonton will sling out the discredited Tory council. I shall use as my text yesterday's issue of the Enfield Gazette & Observer. The headline states:
 Council face big precinct losses 
Underneath which it states:
 Bill for Town Centre could be £2m.
I had the privilege of being the leader of the council and chairman of the planning committee during the 1960s, when the precinct was organised. I am pleased that the precinct is coming to fruition, after 12 years of dillying and dallying by the Tory council. However, as a direct result of Government policy, Enfield ratepayers will have to pay an extra £2 million. It is a bombshell. The newspaper states:
 Privately, Tory councillors admit that the new figures look bad. But they blame the current high interest rates which blacken the picture.
As a result of the Government's monetary policy, my constituents will have to pick up a bigger share of the bill.
Another headline in the Enfield Gazette & Observer states:
 Eastern Enfield could face fire ' devastation '.
My constituents have suffered the triple blow of a Tory council, a Tory GLC, and a Tory Government. I have mentioned the cuts being made by the GLC before. However, the report continues:
 Members of the Co-Ordination and Policy Committee expressed concern about likely


' devastation' if fires occurred in the eastern part of the borough.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend recall the disastrous fire that took place in Kilburn, in the London borough of Brent? As a result of the rundown of fire services, that fire ended in tragedy.

Mr. Graham: I recall that tragedy. Fortunately, the London borough of Enfield has not yet had a tragedy of that dimension. No councillors can have been more assiduous in trying to impress on the GLC that cuts will lead to such fires, than those in Enfield. The Enfield Gazette & Observer also contains an article about the chairman of the GLC fire brigade committee. It states:
The chairman of the GLC's Fire Brigade Committee had agreed to review the situation throughout their area.
I welcome that review. During the past 12 months the chairman of the GLC's fire brigade committee has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that the fears expressed by the council were valid.
One then finds another article, which states:
 Labour fail in free help bid.
That refers to the despicable decision of Enfield's social services committee. It decided to charge £1 for the use of a home help service. It sent letters to everyone, pointing out that if a person was receiving supplementary benefit, he could recoup the charge. It believed that it could pass the bill on to central Government. Of course, the Government quickly pointed out that they would not allow the charge to be passed on by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Consequently, many of my constituents will suffer. I congratulate my fellow Labour councillors, as they have kept up an unremitting campaign on behalf of the weak and disadvantaged.
The newspaper contains another headline, which states:
 Unions' war on mean and shabby' cuts.
Trade unions in my constituency, together with those in Southgate and Enfield, North held a conference last week. They went out of their way to point out that Government and council cuts were having very serious effects.
Another headline states:
 Stand by to be ' clobbered '.

The headline refers to a speech that I made in Committee on Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I pointed out that as a direct result of central Government policy Enfield council would shortly charge for planning applications and objections. The Government have told Enfield and other authorities that they want to save £30 million. They have told them that their constituents must pay for the privilege of applying for planning permission.
The letter page of the Enfield Gazette & Observer is always full of interest. This week's issue contains two interesting letters. One is headed:
 Drowning in a pool increase.
Enfield council has increased swimming pool charges not only for individuals, but also for clubs. The letter points out that the swimming club will be faced with an extra annual cost of £1,000. It points out that Enfield will not get any more money. The increased charge will mean merely that fewer people will receive training. Another letter has the headline " Pay us now." Old-age pensioners are appealing against the Government's policies, and their effect on pensions, and so on.
I turn to the housing policies of central, regional and local government. Not for the first time, I shall refer to the Klinger site in Silver street. I notice that the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is smiling wryly. I have taken great interest in this subject. The GLC reneged on its agreement to build the site, and to rent the houses. Those houses were built so that those who lived in tower blocks could live decently. However, last year the GLC announced that it would sell those homes. I received some details this week. Instead of the houses being rented to those in need, they will be allocated according to the size of an individual's purse. Two-bedroom flats will be available from £27,450. A three-bedroom maisonette will cost from £28,950. Those flats should be occupied by needy and desperate constituents, but they will go to those who can pay the bill, wherever they may live.
My constituents did not vote for this Government. They did not vote for their council. Last year they elected a Tory to the GLC. I forecast that that relapse will be remedied in the GLC elections.

Mr. John Wheeler: I am glad to take part in this debate. In common with other hon. Members who represent London constituencies, I welcome the opportunity to discuss some of the problems and issues that concern so many of those who live within the Greater London area. I shall not apologise for taking up the theme adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt). I wish to discuss the quality of life of the 7 million people who live in London. In addition, one must consider the 1 million to 2 million people who work in the capital and our many overseas visitors.
Not many years ago, the citizens of London and of the United Kingdom could proudly boast that our streets, buses and Underground were among the safest in the world. We could boast that we could use those facilities without any fear or regard for personal safety. We had every confidence that a journey could be undertaken and completed without damage or harm.
Today that is no longer the case. Hardly a day passes without there being reported in the national press and in the London newspapers an incident that is both shocking and alarming. Indeed, we learnt only a few weeks ago that a former Prime Minister had been attacked on the Underground and put in fear. That is not uncommon.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Foot (by private notice): Mr. Foot (by private notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement about next week's business in the light of the statement by the Secretary of State for Industry yesterday on the appointment of the new chairman of the British Steel Corporation and the conditions attached thereto.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I have considered carefully the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the need to reconsider next week's business in the light of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry regarding the appointment of the new chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend made a very full statement about the appointment, and the House had a good opportunity to question him on the matter. I do not feel therefore that I should make a statement about reconsidering next week's business.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the mingle anger and derision with which his right hon. Friend's statement was received throughout the country? Does he not recognise that the House of Commons has a right to pronounce on these questions? Does he not further recognise that from different quarters of the House and throughout the country it is considered a serious matter? For the House to leave it to fester for several days on end is a gross piece of delinquency on the part of the Government.
We believe that the appointment raises questions about the competence of the Secretary of State for Industry. I therefore urge the Government once again to answer our plea for a debate next week on this important subject, which affects a great industry in the country and our standards of public life.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that there has been anger and derision among some people about this appointment, but the reaction of others has been quite different. Their reaction has been that the important thing is to achieve the best


man for this job and they are aware that we are acting not within the confines of Britain but in an international market.
Next week's business was arranged, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, after a great real of careful discussion through the usual channels. I adapted that business throughout the period in order to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition. It is very important business indeed, including consideration of the public expenditure White Paper and the debate on the Finance Bill. It is also a short week, because we lose Monday.
I am not saying to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be no debate on this subject if the Opposition wish to have one. However, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the exact timing of a debate is a matter that can be taken up through the usual channels.

Mr. Foot: Of course there were discussions about the business announced by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, but the understanding on that business was reached before the business announcement was made. We are deeply shocked by the Secretary of State's statement, and believe that the House should discuss it as swiftly as possible. If the Secretary of State has a case to make, let him make it as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no time next week, but we could have a debate on Tuesday. He knows very well that we have the strongest objections to the timetable motion, because we do not feel that there is justification for it. We could have a debate on the Tuesday when we meet or for the three hours after. There is plenty of time. There is no ground for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot fit it in.
It is true that some people have commented favourably on the competence of the person appointed, but there has been almost universal condemnation of the Government's handling of the matter and the way that their scheme has injured the prospect. We are not sure which is greater—the derision or the anger. If the Government intended to handle the matter this way, why did they not go for Kevin Keegan straight away? He is the best in the business. Why not my old friend Brian Clough? Perhaps the Government should have special conditions to bring in

Peter Taylor at the same time. That would have been more sensible.
The Government have made themselves the laughing stock of the country, apart from injuring our position. If they believe that they have a case, I urge them to face the House in a debate on the matter as swiftly as possible.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking strangely if he seriously believes that it is such a serious matter. That is hardly the tone in which to discuss a serious matter—to make a joke about it and treat it with levity. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that the vital issue is the future of the steel industry.
We cannot discuss across the Dispatch Box details of business arrangements. I believe that further discussion should take place through the usual channels, and I am always very glad to meet the right hon. Gentleman to see whether a reasonable accord can be reached.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three hon. Members from either side. We must be fair to the London Members in view of today's debate.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I gather from what my right hon. Friend says that there might be a debate some time in the future—if not next week, the week after next. Does he agree that, if that debate is to be fruitful, the appointment of Mr MacGregor should be seen in the context of the grave problems facing the British steel industry?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for that constructive comment. It is important to stabilise the industry and establish it on a prosperous basis for the future. It is the unanimous view of the Government that the right man to achieve that is Mr. MacGregor.

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the conclusion in The Times this morning that if these were the terms on which Mr. MacGregor was willing to accept appointment he should not have been appointed? Is he further aware that it is precisely because of the needs of a great industry that the creation of a lame duck chairman, with the right


hon. Gentleman by so doing becoming a lame duck Minister, is a matter that the House should debate immediately?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I always read The Times first thing in the morning. I then provide myself with an antidote by reading The Guardian. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the leading article in The Guardian, which takes a rather different line from that in The Times That precisely underlines my point that there are different points of view.
As for the chairman, of course he is not a lame duck chairman. However, I hope that Labour Members will not expend their efforts in order to make him into a lame duck chairman by endless and unjustified criticism of the appointment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: On the Conservative Benches we all recognise the absolute determination to appoint the right man. However, at the appropriate moment there is one matter on which we should like an explanation. Given that Mr. MacGregor's salary is perfectly reasonable, a problem arises over the capital sum for releasing him from his task. Is that sum the agreed damages for breach of his existing contract? If so, it would seem large. Alternatively, is it an agreed sum paid voluntarily to enable Mr. MacGregor to be released, and on what basis was the figure arrived at? At some stage it would be useful for the public to understand how those figures were compiled, because they are substantial.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. and learned Friend has raised interesting questions. As I see it, the general basis of the agreement is quite plain. Mr. MacGregor's salary will be the normal salary. A capital sum is involved which is being paid by way of compensation for the loss of his services to the firm for which he was working.

Mr. John Morris: Is not the Minister aware, after a 13-week strike in the steel industry, of the fragility of industrial relations? The sooner the Government have the opportunity of making whatever case they can, the better it will be, so that we can judge the strengths and weaknesses of that case. Is it not dangerous to avoid a debate and give the impression that Mr. MacGregor is the only man available

and that these are the only terms available? The impression in the steel constituencies is that the Government have gone plain mad.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The matter was discussed first in the House yesterday and we are having further comment on the subject today. I have made it quite clear that I am not trying to avoid a debate on this matter, but I have to protect the other business of the House and the very delicate arrangements reached after weeks of negotiations through the usual channels and with the right hon. Gentleman. After a good deal of give and take on both sides, we reached an agreement that was to the satisfaction of everybody. There is no question of a debate being avoided. I have said that we can discuss the matter through the usual channels and I have given my view—

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is an urgent matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not as urgent as all that. This appointment is to take effect in July. It will not make a great deal of difference if the debate is delayed for a few days. I understand the situation very well. I also understand this point—which the hon. Gentleman does not understand—that what is important here is not the making of party political capital but the future of the steel industry.

Mr. Neubert: As my right hon. Friend has referred to the shortness of the next parliamentary week, will he be assured that many of us would be willing to come in on Monday if it would assist in the progress of this business? We are reluctant to celebrate the red rag of a May Day holiday instituted by the last Labour Government for partisan political ends.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall be equally happy to come into the House on Monday. I believe that this extra bank holiday was a great mistake. But there it is—we must make the best of it. Unfortunately, I think that there are legal problems. I do not think that we would be able to summon staff to serve the House on an official bank holiday.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the holiday was wrong, he should not have voted for it or proposed in the House a few weeks ago a motion which sustained it.
On the matter of next week's business, no agreement was reached between the two sides of the House about the guillotine motion on Tuesday. We are bitterly opposed to the guillotine motion on every possible ground. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult for him to rearrange the business for next week. That is not the case. It is possible for us to have this debate on Tuesday either in the first three hours or the second three hours.
In the interests of the steel industry, if the right hon. Gentleman is genuine in his view of the matter, he will be prepared to make that rearrangement for the reasons advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who really does know something about the steel industry. The right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the effect on the steel industry in the next week or two if he dithers in the way that he has proposed. I urge him, once again, to come to the House on Tuesday and announce that the business has been rearranged.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Leaving aside the question of bank holidays and which one is worse than another, I do not feel as strongly about this bank holiday as I do about the subsequent bank holiday which has confused our calendar by confusing the traditional religious Whitsun with a new secular holiday. That was an even greater mistake—[Interruption.] I am entitled to comment on bank holidays as well as the right hon. Gentleman and to give my view.
I pay tribute, of course, to the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's knowledge of the steel industry and to his intense personal concern because of the constituency that he represents. I do not deny for a moment that this is a matter on which it is reasonable to have a debate. But, as for the guillotine motion, I have to protect the legislation and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill must reach the statute book by a certain date so that the books can be issued and arrangements made for the payment of benefits. I must balance that consideration. I have said that, although I believe that it is not possible to rearrange the business for next week, we can, through the usual channels, discuss the possibility of finding an early day for a debate on this subject.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more Back Bencher from the Opposition.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who have the interests of the steel industry at heart believe that the announcement made yesterday was a grave error of judgment, because it damages the morale of the present management and employees in British Steel?
Will the right hon. Gentleman please publish before the debate all the transactions and negotiations between Mr. MacGregor and the Government so that the House may see what was involved? This was not a personal appointment but a contract involving enormous sums of public money and foreign exchange. The latter point is most relevant since it is widely believed that this is a wholly improper transaction bordering, in the view of many people, on bribery and corruption and that it should be discussed properly by the House of Commons.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman has spoilt his point by absurd exaggeration. To say that a contract entered into on commercial grounds is akin to bribery and corruption is a remark which the right hon. Gentleman, if he reflects upon it, will regret having made.
The question of publishing the transactions leading to the appointment is a matter for decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The morale of the steel industry is certainly low at the moment for a variety of reasons in which many people have a share of responsibility. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that what is important is not past morale in the steel industry but the possibility of raising morale in future. We believe that by getting the services of Mr. MacGregor for the steel industry we shall create a situation which offers a good chance that morale in the industry will be raised. That is the basis of the Government's approach.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to preserve such rights as I may have to seek to move the Adjournment of the House order Standing Order No. 9 on Tuesday, and


I hereby give you notice that I might do that.
May I explain one thing, Mr. Speaker? Your references at column 1643 of the Official Report of yesterday's date to taking note of
 conversations between the usual channels on this question 
mean that you may not be aware of certain facts. As you were saying those very words, the Leader of the House;—who said that he had considered the request of my right hon. Friend carefully—had left the Chamber and gone to tell the press that he had no intention of changing the business. In other words, he did that before he had considered the request of my right hon. Friend or that of anyone else. In those circumstances, it may be that I shall, on Tuesday, have to pray you in aid, Mr. Speaker, in order that we may get a debate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the exchanges today, which have contained clear and explicit references to a debate. I do not want to raise any false hopes on the part of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He will of course be in order in making his application, but I do not want to leave him over a happy May Day weekend with wrong ideas.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that there is in your mind the question of urgency mentioned by the Leader of the House. The urgency of the matter is this. The point that I seek to raise implies that there is no legal——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will tell me the urgency of the matter on Tuesday.

LONDON

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Wheeler: We return to the perils of using the Underground system in London. I was about to describe how this aspect of life in London has increasingly become a major scandal. The citizens of London, whether young or old, fit or infirm, now fear to use the Underground, particularly from the mid-evening onwards. I am sure that hon. Members on

both sides will be well aware of the views of their constituents and of their desire to see some action to deal with this aspect of London life.
The House will be familiar with the incident which occurred at Neasden and the subsequent action by the staff of the Underground system who felt that they should protest because of the lawlessness on the " tube ". They might well take that course. Assaults on members of London Transport staff are now running at over 1,000 a year, as against 890 in 1977. In 1979, 291 members of the staff of the Underground were assaulted and the latest information I have is that there are now about 30 assaults a month—in other words, one a day.
But the problem is not confined to the staff. Those who use the system are increasingly assaulted. I refer to the most serious assaults, those causing grievous bodily harm, where people are injured, blood flows or limbs are broken. The total of such assaults is 494. Worse still, of that number reported, only 192 were cleared up by the British Transport Police.
Theft from the person is a particularly offensive crime to many London people. Over 5,000 such offences were reported in 1978, and a mere 124 were cleared up. There were over 1,000 reported offences of criminal damage, and 183 were cleared up.
Those figures show the seriousness of the problem, but they conceal the truth. Many people using the transport and Underground system are not reporting to the authorities the fact that they have been assaulted, that they have been mugged or have been present when damage has been caused.
I can do no better than quote the experience of one London citizen who uses the Underground system in my constituency, at Queensway. However, before I go underground, I should like briefly to discuss what happens above ground in Queensway. It has surely become one of the most squalid thoroughfares in inner London. That is not the fault of the Westminster city council, which is responsible for cleaning up the area, or of the Metropolitan Police, who seek to police it. One has great sympathy with both those authorities.
The authorities require some support. I wish that I could persuade Ministers to


look at the Control of Pollution Act and bring into operation that part of it which enables the compactor to be made available and used especially in conjunction with the local authority. We should then see some improvement above ground in those major thorougfares where the pressures from the community are so serious.
But to return to what happens below Queensway——

Mr. Rees-Davies: Before my hon. Friend does so, on this immensely important point about the use of the compactor, what would be the approximate cost of such use if it were introduced by all restaurants and hotels, thereby substantially improving the cleansing of London Streets?

Mr. Wheeler: I believe that the cost would be no more than £300. For the sort of businesses that operate in the Queensway area—the take-away food shops, for example—this would be a mere pittance, but the result in cleanliness and the improvement in the quality of life for residents and visitors would be enormous.
It would also assist if the planning regulations could be improved, certainly for the inner London authorities. It is possible to open a take-away food shop with almost no restrictions. If we are concerned about the quality of life in inner London particularly, the authorities should be invested with some ability to require people to do things for the benefit of the whole community.
I now return below the thoroughfare of Queensway, to the Underground station. A London resident writes to me as the court of last resort appealing for help because of what is happening below ground:
 I first became aware of this group of six..... youths in December 1979 and I, along with two other passengers, assisted a young American tourist who had been robbed of her wallet. A few days later I was punched and kicked by a member of the same gang when I obstructed the door of a tube train which closed prematurely. The carriage contained one of the gang's victims and the obstrucion of the door thus represented a threat In January of this year "—
1980—
 I met a woman seeking the protective company of a member of the station staff because she had noticed youths that had robbed earlier on. In a conversation with her and several other passengers I learnt of what must be the

vast number of robberies for which these people are responsible.
In other words, " these robberies" are not being reported to the police. He goes on:
 In December of last year and January of this year I made six complaints by telephone to the London Transport Police.
He says that he received a sympathetic hearing. I pay tribute to the London Transport Police. They do their best and are a good force, but the resources are not available to them.
My constituent goes on to say that the police themselves could offer no real hope that they could enforce the law. He says that they were aware of the seriousness of the problem but that they felt unable to offer a solution to it.
That is the evidence of one London citizen and I am sure that the same story could be told over and over again. The problem is to give attention to the policing of the Underground system in particular. At present the British Transport Police are responsible for policing below ground in London. Above ground, in Queensway and elsewhere in London, the Metropolitan Police are responsible. If one goes down a few steps, one is outside their jurisdiction.
The British Transport Police are responsible for law and order on the railway system and the Underground system throughout the United Kingdom. Their present strength is 1,917 officers for the whole country. The number of officers available for policing the London Underground system is 146. With the best of intentions, such a police force is not able to bring back law and order to a considerable and extending Underground system.
The National Union of Railwaymen, which is most concerned about the problem, has addressed a great deal of time to finding some solutions. It has suggested that the London Transport Police force should be at least 500 strong if there is to be any real resolution in tackling the problem of law and order. I could suggest a number of technical proposals for improving law and order—for example, the need to provide radio communication between police officers on the Underground system. Such technical advances would help. But there is a difficulty. A small police force, with a lack of resources, is not able to summon


to any particular incident or serious situation large numbers of police in a short time. The only solution to an urgent situation is to seek help from the Metropolitan Police.
The time has now come for the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport seriously to consider changing the arrangements for the policing of the Underground system. The whole House will be aware of the serious problems facing the Metropolitan Police. At this moment hundreds of police officers are dealing with a serious incident only a mile or two from this House at the Iranian embassy siege. All hon. Members acknowledge the increasing duties and problems faced by the Metropolitan Police. I believe, however, that the time has come for that force to become responsible for law and order on the Underground system. Only that police force, 22,000 strong, with its training, resources, and equipment, can solve the problem of lawlessness on the Underground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, spoke of the quality of life. What can be more important to the people of London than the ability and freedom to move about their streets and to use their transport undertakings in safety? What can be more important to those who seek employment in those undertakings than to be able to do so with the confidence that they have a job that will not bring them into peril on a daily basis? There is one assault a day. It is no wonder that so few people wish to work for the transport undertaking in London.
I invite the authorities to grasp the nettle and to seek an early solution involving the use of the Metropolitan Police in the policing of the Underground system in the same way that we were obliged to use the Metropolitan Police to police Heathrow airport.

Mr. George Cunningham: Before coming to the main subject on which I wish to speak, I should like to make a couple of points about the Metropolitan Police and other police forces operating in London. If consideration were to be given to the amalgamation of the Metropolitan Police with the London transport police, the possibility would also have to be considered of amalgamating the parks police—those

who were called park keepers but who are constables and have the powers of constables in the Royal parks.
Hon. Members are aware that the Metropolitan Police have difficulty in finding large numbers of officers to deal with incidents such as the Iranian embassy siege. It would seem sensible for the parks police to be available to the Metropolitan force in such circumstances.
More importantly, I am increasingly disturbed by references made to the alleged non-accountability of the Metropolitan Police. Hon. Members are aware of the difference in the form of control, although " control " is not quite the word, over the Metropolitan Police compared with that over police forces outside London. It is not true to say that the form of authority that exists over the Metropolitan Police is any less democratic than the form that exists over non-London police forces. It is at least arguable—it is certainly my view—that Members of Parliament are better placed to be able to exercise influence and control over such a mighty thing as a police force as councillors outside London.
The police authority for London is the Home Secretary, who is answerable to this House. I beg to suggest that Members of Parliament who wish to raise a police matter find it a great deal easier to get satisfaction, through their ability to raise the matter in the House, than even a councillor who is a member of a police authority outside London finds possible. The time may come for the House to examine the whole situation and perhaps amalgamate the two systems in order to achieve a common system. I believe personally that if that happened we would have to recognise the reality that authority exists in the Home Office and that what exists at local level is, at most, consultation. In London, there is no formal method by which local authorities are involved even in consultation with the police forces. That situation could be improved.
The main subject to which I wish to refer is "gipsies". I put the word in inverted commas because legislation in this country, in its typically sloppy-minded way, has defined the word " gipsy " contrary to all common sense. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 provides:
'Gipsies' means persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does


not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen ".
If I take to a nomadic habit of life, I have become a gipsy, and I am the beneficiary of such rights as are enshrined in this Act and elsewhere.
I believe that legislation on this subject has been misconceived from the beginning. I perceive in this debate and on other occasions a growing recognition that this is the case. Some action has to be taken to relieve our constituents of the unbearable nuisance from which thousands are intermittently suffering due to the stationing of caravants in their vicinity.
The Cripps report of a few years ago recognised the special situation that applies to the inner city areas and, above all, the inner city areas of London. But that recognition, to which lip service is paid, is not reflected in the action taken under the legislation. I think I am right in saying that not a single London borough is the beneficiary of exemption under the Caravan Sites Act. A number of London boroughs have been designated under section 12 of the Act, which means that they acquire additional powers and that the illicit stationing of caravans in those areas becomes a criminal offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) has drawn attention to the fact that this is a very weak additon to a borough's powers and that the existence of a criminal offence is not effective.
The main action that Governments could have taken in at least some inner London boroughs would have been to give the exemption permitted and anticipated under the Act to those London boroughs where it was completely contrary to common sense for there to be a gipsy site. My borough of Islington asked for exemption some years ago. The Department of Environment's response was to say " Why are you asking for exemption? There are no gipsies in Islington and there is no prospect that gipsies will resort to Islington, so why bother us? " The matter was laid aside, and the inevitable happened. Some caravanners started resorting to Islington. The council was in breach of its statutory duty to provide sites for those caravanners. The caravanners complained to the local authority ombudsman, who upheld the complaint. The local authority was not to blame. It was the fault of the Department of the Environment, which

did not foresee the possibility that people would resort to areas where it was unnatural, in common sense terms, to go.
It is absurd that an inner city area with one of the worst housing situations in the country should be asked to provide and equip a site worth probably about £1 million for caravanners. That means that a handful of people are given priority over all the families waiting for housing, above all the young couples living with their mothers and fathers or who are split up because they are. Thousands of such people should be given higher priority than people who drift into an area with a caravan or, more commonly, a lorry and proceed to pay scant respect to the rights and entitlements of people in the area.
Islington has experienced three major incidents in recent years—at Laycock Street, Northampton Buildings and, very recently, at the southern end of Barnsbury Road. We should not mince words about the nuisance caused to our constituents. It is not just a question of people going on to the land with lorries and, when they finally depart, leaving behind chunks of metal and other refuse. The things that are done on those sites are things that should be done in lavatories. The things that are done on those sites, in open view of everybody, are things that should be done in private places. Many of my constituents woke up about two months ago to find that within a shorter distance than that which lies between me and the other side of the Chamber they were in a type of goldfish bowl lavatory.
Why on earth should the legislation and the behaviour of successive Governments subject any of our constituents to that nuisance without remedy? Some might say that there is a remedy because the local authority or landowner can go to court and obtain a possession order requiring such people to move. Normally that process takes many weeks. Between six and eight weeks would be a modest estimate. That is the length of time which, at best, it has taken local authorities in my area to have the caravanners moved on. On the last occasion they moved on to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown). When he manages to get rid of them they will come back to my constituency or to that of my hon.


Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis).
We must find better ways of dealing with the problem. Government must be told that there was a misconception in the legislation from the beginning and that we are not prepared to put up with it for much longer.
It was suggested earlier that the provisions for legal action which have been dropped from the latest version of the local government Bill might be put back by Back-Bench action. I understand that that has been ruled out and that it is not possible because of the terms of the Bill's long title. If that is so, it is open to the Government, as the authors of the Bill, to take the initiative and put back those provisions. In the light of remarks made from both sides of the House today, I hope that the Government will examine that possibility and recognise that the provisions should be put back.
The powers which a local authority acquires when it is lucky enough to have its area designated by the Department of the Environment are too weak in two respects. First, it is necessary to know the identity of the person who is to be prosecuted. The law of the land does not always require that. If someone parks his car on the street, the police may tow it away without knowing the identity of the owner. I do not see why in a designated area the same method should not be adopted. Such vehicles should be towed away so that the onus is on the owner to find it.
Secondly, there is the question of the criminal nature of the offence. The Act provides that in a designated area the parking of caravans and other vehicles on non-permitted ground is a criminal offence. But the fine is £20. That was the ridiculously low fine set in 1968. It was far too low then and it is certainly absurd now. The fine should be raised to a more significant level. There should be consultations between the Department of the Environment and the Metropolitan Police about the action which the Metropolitan Police are able and willing to take to enforce the law. The police axe reluctant to be involved in such action. However, if a caravan is parked in a designated area a criminal offence is involved. When that is brought to the attention of the police by a local authority, the police

should take action, as they would in relation to any other criminal offence.
I hope that the Government will take seriously on board the fact that many hon. Members and many local authorities are insisting, in a way that they did not a few years ago, that greater powers are needed to protect citizens against that intense nuisance. I hope that the Government will take action while the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is going through the House to provide the powers that are required.

Mr. Martin Stevens: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) referred to London's dockland and the dockland southern relief road. I want to whip the House into a fever of enthusiasm and to send my hon. Friend, the ministerial maid of all work—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—hussling off, determined to come into the House on bank holiday Monday to give effect to the points that my hon. Friend and I are making.
The 5,000 acres of land available for development in dockland, at the heart of our capital city, gives us a unique opportunity which no other capital city enjoys. Not only is it essential to develop that land in the most exciting and imaginative way for the benefit of every Londoner, but it is vital that transport facilities to and from it are adequate to allow it to live, to breathe and succeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) chaired a committee which reported a few weeks ago to the Centre for Political Studies on this matter. We all know that reports on London matters over my hon. Friend's signature gain instant and unqualified acceptance. Referring in that report to the reasons why dockland had not been properly developed more quickly—the problem has been with us for a number of years—he said, first that
 the roads and transport facilities are inadequate.
He said, secondly, that, sadly, the objectives of the five dockland borough councils
 are hostile to economically viable development.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Stevens: I do not want to make this a party utterance, but it seems to me that the Labour Party has adopted a negative approach to this exciting opportunity.
Third, the efforts to co-ordinate these developments have not been very efficient, and planning delays have been unnecessarily extended. The uncertainties of political change and political pressures discourage developers from getting to work until public money has been committed. They do not know whether, if they establish a business or plant within the dockland area, the rest of the area will be developed as they hope, or whether they will find themselves isolated in a desert. We must give potential developers the confidence to believe that they will form part of truly exciting central metropolitan area. Co-operation between the Government and developers is therefore essential.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) seemed sceptical when I begged the Labour Party to be less negative. He said that the Labour Party was not negative, but what is one to say to Mr. Andrew Mackintosh who on 11 March this year, as planning spokesman, said
 the first thing we will do in May 1981 "—
if his party should be returned to power at County Hall—
 is to kill it ",
" it" being the proposal for the docklands southern relief road. My argument to-day is that this road is an essential factor in the success of docklands. Unless my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench make sure that the plans for the road reach an irreversible stage in the next 12 months, we always have to face the possibility, though not on a 3·9 per cent. swing, that Mr. Mackintosh might, if the worst came to the worst, have a chance, in his unlovely phrase, to " kill it".
It is therefore disappointing that the public inquiry into the proposed dockland southern relief road, which was to have been held this summer, has now been postponed until the spring of 1981, and that we cannot expect a decision until the following May. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister, with all the emphasis of which I am capable, that he could then find that it is too late.
Briefly, the arguments in favour of the development of the southern relief road are these. By providing first-class cross-

river access linking five major roads it will open up the whole dockland area to the employment, investment and confidence that it so badly needs. No improvement to existing roads could provide adequate first-class access and the infrastructure essential for development. Without this road the Government's policy for an enterprise zone in the docklands will be crippled and ineffective. Without the road most of the schemes for the Surrey docks will fall.
I know that it has been thought that the Surrey docks might be made part of the urban development corporation, and that is still one of the options. But the attitude of the Southwark council has been such that I understand that Mr. Broackes and his deputy chairman, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) might defer to the wishes of the local authority and not seek to make the Surrey docks area a part of the corporation.
Whatever decision the Government and the chairman and his colleagues arrive at on this issue, I beg my hon. Friend to ensure that his ministerial colleagues know, as I am sure they do, that if this chance of including Surrey docks within the total area of the dockland development is lost now it will not recur.
The road should be very high among the priority schemes in London of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. An early start is critical. The opposition to the road from the dockland boroughs is parochial and short sighted. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has from the outset of the Government's term of office made it clear that he is sympathetic in principle to our views. On 25 June 1979 he committed the Government to a comprehensive approach to the problems of London's major roads. On 22 April this year he announced that the studies on the Jubilee line were going forward. I have a report from the Greater London Council into ways of achieving the benefits of the Jubilee line at a lower cost.
Only two days ago my right hon. Friend announced that £105 million would be made available for a river crossing from Beckton to Thamesmead which would link the A15 and the A2, which, while far to the east of the area I am describing, will make an important contribution to opening up East London. For


centuries the River Thames has been the capital's main highway. In the past it enabled London to flourish as the world's greatest port. Unrestricted river access was essential to the Port of London, hence the absence of bridges over the river and the dependence on tunnels.
London is segregated by the Thames. It can be crossed 25 times upstream of Tower bridge and only twice downstream within the same distance. The need to keep the river open for navigation has resulted in the docklands section having only one-third of the crossing capacity which today exists for the equivalent section upstream from Chelsea bridge to Kew bridge. That constitutes a major lack of communication facilities in the dockland area compared with the western side of London. I do not want to take the time to make a prolonged breakdown of the historical background to the need for the relief road, nor to seek to review the arguments advanced in an unsatisfactory document by the London boroughs of Southwark and Tower Hamlets in which they set out the case against the road. I think that most of the professional people, including those who found themselves appearing to be the authors of the document, have felt that it was less than a totally satisfactory or mature approach to the argument.

Mr. Mikardo: Even if the hon. Gentleman does not accept those arguments, will he agree that they are put forward on technical grounds? How does he square that with his suggestion that the opposition of the boroughs is based purely on political doctrine?

Mr. Stevens: I do not think that I mentioned politics. I said that there had been a negative attitude. For example, the first plank of the report was that the dockland southern relief road was not part of the London docklands strategic plan, which was approved in 1976. That was a highly misleading statement, because at the time to which that document referred, the GLC was actively pursuing an investigation into the southern relief road. As the hon. Member well knows, it has now given its full endorsement to the proposal. It would have been slightly more honest—again, I am talking not about politics but about the professional presentation of the facts—had that report indicated what the true facts were, instead

of suggesting that the GLC was opposed to the road, which was not and is not the case.
I do not want to delay the House—because many other hon. Members wish to speak—by rehearsing these arguments at length. However, I shall circulate them in written form, as I have already done to my hon. Friend, to London Members who are participating in the debate so that they can have the benefit of studying them at their leisure. I hope that we shall not, as we have done in the years leading up to this debate, allow this matter to fail through lack of publicity, understanding, inspiration or a desire and ability to seize an opportunity.
I hope to organise a group of like-minded people in Greater London, on an entirely non-party political basis. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) will join me if I can persuade him that my heart is pure and that the case is unanswerable, as I think I can. In that way I hope to lend nonpartisan public support to the development of docklands and the relief road. I beg hon. Members to accept that this is a tremendously exciting opportunity which we shall lose if we do not grasp it. Other metropolitan cities in the rest of the world would give their right arms—if cities had arms—for such an opportunity. Let us make the most of it. Above all, do not let us waste it.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shall follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) in talking about docklands, but I shall not follow him in his obsession with the southern relief road. Docklands is an area which is full of problems, and those problems are full of complexities. Problems which are full of complexities always require solutions which are many-sided. One of the things which worries me about the passionate—I could almost say, obsessive—advocates of the southern relief road is that they look upon it as a magic wand, and that given the southern relief road all the problems will be solved.
Anyone who has been involved in studying the problems of docklands over the years could not fail to recognise that that is a gross over-simplification, to put it at its best. It could well be that the southern relief road would bring some


benefits. But one must consider the balance of advantage. It would also result in some disadvantage. One must also consider whether the same amount of resources, if applied in different ways, could produce better results for docklands than this magic wand formula.
Many people have applied their minds to the road proposal. To be as dismissive as the hon. Gentleman was of those who oppose it, as though they have not thought the matter through or have some prejudice or whatever, will not do. Powerful arguments are involved. It is a very difficult question indeed. One must allow for the disturbance which such a project would cause as well as the benefits that would result. One must allow for the planning blight and the sterilisation which will be caused over a period of years. One must take into consideration all the other things which will be stopped while the road is being built. One must weigh up all the pros and cons. A much more sophisticated judgment is required in coming to a decision than the hon. Gentleman, with all respect, has so far applied. I beg him to believe that there are many more points which he should consider before arriving at a final conclusion.
I mentioned the danger of planning blight which results from a major project. There is very little understanding of that outside the areas which are most directly affected. For example, the Tower Hamlets patch of the docklands area has been affected by all sorts of blight for a long time—one could almost argue, ever since the war. First, there was bombing blight. Then there was development blight. During the period when the overall plan for docklands was under discussion, there was planning blight. The trouble with planners, as with so many other technicians, is that they always seem to be willing to make an enemy of the good. Whenever a plan is produced, it is not executed, because just as it is about to be someone comes up with a bright idea which might improve it. As a result, everything stops while that idea is considered. If such a plan is improved, everything stops while those improvements are considered, and so it goes on and on.
I had experience of this in a different context during the war with regard to the building of aircraft. In the end, Lord Beaverbrook cut through the problem.

But at one stage no aeroplanes were supplied because they were being designed and redesigned all the time and never got off the drawing board. We started with a simple design which could have been put into manufacture very quickly, but by the time the designers had finished it was covered with
 bubukles, and whelks, and knobs ",
just like a Christmas tree. Therefore, we never got around to making it. In the end, 'Lord Beaverbrook told the industry " I would sooner have some imperfect aeroplanes than no perfect aeroplanes". It is exactly the same with physical planning in an area such as docklands.
I think of the time and money which was wasted by the Travers-Morgan inquiry, which produced all sorts of fanciful and theoretical schemes such as a safari park, golf courses and heavens knows what. That report included everything except the provision for houses and jobs for those who live in the area. That was the last of its priorities. That held us up.
That was followed by the establishment of the Docklands Joint Committee, which I think has been unfairly criticised. A new body takes time to get into the swing of things. If the Urban Development Corportation goes ahead, there will be another few years of planning blight, because inevitably it will take just as long to get into the swing of things as the DJC. I do not say that by way of criticism.
The chairman and the members of the corporation will have to appoint a staff and find somewhere to house that staff. That staff will sit down and look at all the plans that have been produced. It will go all the way back to Travers-Morgan, the DJC and all the rest, in order to produce a plan of its own. It will probably take a couple of years before a spade is shoved into the earth in anger in order to turn over a spit of earth and do anything at all. That will happen all over again.
It is tragic, because the stage has now been reached when the joint committee, having completed the initial preparation period, which included delays in research and development—which are just as great in planning as they are in manufacturing—is now swinging into action—and the action is swinging. If the hon. Member for Fulham persists in his idea that the Docklands Joint Committee is a dead


body, I shall have to invite him on a tour of Tower Hamlets so that he can see what is going on there. His eyes will pop out of his head.
The research and development period has now been completed, and for someone to say that that plan should be stopped, and that another organisation should be brought in, which will have to start from scratch, is an absolute tragedy for the developments that are now taking place in the docklands.
It also has to be borne in mind that, whatever is said for or against the joint committee, it is a responsible and accountable body. There will be no accountability on the part of the development corporation. It is one thing to set up a development corporation and to develop a place such as Milton Keynes—a small village with empty green fields, but the development of the docklands is completely different. Part of the designated docklands area falls within the borough of Tower Hamlets, which has only a quarter of the acreage of the area. There is much more acreage in Newham, next door. That quarter of the acreage holds more than half of the total population, and it is a densely populated area. There are no green fields, and there is no one with any interest in the area or who has a right to have a say in what goes on. It is one of the few areas where the population is increasing at present. Mr. Nigel Broackes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) should not be able to tell the people what to do. They should not be able to say that they were not elected, and therefore cannot be kicked out if the people do not agree with what they are doing. I can envisage enormous public relations difficulties and enormous difficulties in relationships between the corporation and the community, because what is happening is absolutely inappropriate.
I wish to refer to the proposed enterprise zones. I do not take a blanket, doctrinal objection to them immediately, because I do not yet know what they are, or where they will be. At present we simply know the title. We do not know what form they will take, what they will do, or what changes will be made to set up an enterprise zone. We should reserve our judgment until we see the proposition that is put forward.
There will be great difficulties if the wishes of the more extreme advocates of this sort of enterprise are fulfilled. If we give people the right to breach the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and the Factories Acts, to pollute the atmosphere, to work in dangerous conditions or cause enviromental damage, a great deal of difficulty will be created in all these areas. However, we do not know that that will happen, and I shall keep a vigilant eye on the situation to ensure that it does not happen. I shall suspend my judgment until then. We do not yet know where the areas will be. We do not know which London boroughs will be designated as enterprise zones, what conditions may be put on the bids, or whether those conditions will be acceptable to the Department.
If the Department really wants bids from London boroughs, information must be given about the provision and the cost of the provision of infrastructure. In many of those areas infrastructure costs will be very high. If the enterprise zone for London falls within the dockland areas, in addition to all the normal problems of site clearance there will be the problem of clearing water off the site. That is an expensive operation, which will have to be taken into account by boroughs when they consider whether to put in bids. The benefits to them will be indirect—for example, higher rateable values. From their point of view the enterprise zone is a loser. Unless the Department gives information on who will bear responsibility for the high cost of infrastructure, there may not be an enterprise zone in London, because no borough will be willing to prejudice its financial position by putting in a bid for such a zone.
I hope that the Minister will give some information about that. If he does not he will find that the bright idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will prove to be a very addled egg.

Mr. William Shefton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not present, because I wish to tell him I agree with what he said about the problem of caravans. I was disappointed by the report of the Countryside Commission. If the clause governing caravans is re-established in the


Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, I shall support it.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) as chairman of the committee which bore his name, and am delighted to say how much I agreed with his remarks. I say that as one who served in the Inner London Education Authority some years ago as chief whip.
I also pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt), and I agree with his remarks about the quality of life in London. The only caveat I enter is that the quality of life for those living in Streatham and Lambeth is somewhat soured by the antics of the Lambeth borough council.
Once again, I wish to dwell for a few moments on the goings-on of that extraordinary council with which Lambeth is cursed. I am not referring to the amenities and contributions from Lambeth and Streatham, about which comment has been made in the press recently.
I do not know whether hon. Members saw a league table of rates in the Evening Standard some weeks ago. At that time, 29 boroughs had declared their rates. The worst performers in that league table—those 10 with the highest rates—were all Labour. The 10 best—those with the least rate increases—were, of course, all Conservative.

Mr. Mikardo: One of the most fascinating statistical conclusions deriving from a study of the result of yesterday's elections is that Labour did best in the highest-rated boroughs. That goes to show that the ratepayers and the other electors do not attach to the level of rates anything like the significance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to it.

Mr. Shelton: If I may say so, that is a very shrewd remark, and I shall return to it a little later in my speech.
It is extraordinary that the impact of rates on votes is not yet appreciated as much as one would expect. I have some reasons for saying that and I shall come to them a little later.
The London borough which had the greatest rise was—surprise, surprise—the borough of Lambeth, which had a rise of 49·5 per cent., following a rise of 40

per cent. last year, making a cumulative rise of 110 per cent. in two years.
It is especially bitter for the people of Lambeth—judging by the vast amount of correspondence that I receive not only from Streatham but from all over Lam beth—that alongside Lambeth lies the Conservative-controlled borough of Wandsworth. The irony was highlighted by a photograph which appeared in various newspapers a few weeks ago of Hazelbourne Road, one side of which is in the borough of Lambeth and the other side of which is in the borough of Wands worth. On one side, the rates are £233 a year. For identical houses on the other side, the rates are £376 a year. I shall allow hon. Members to guess which borough has the higher rates and which borough has the lower rates. In fact, the Lambeth rates are some 60 per cent. higher for identical properties. In talking to householders——

Mr. Dubsb: Mr. Dubsbrose——

Mr. Shelton: I shall give way in a moment. I always welcome the hon. Gentleman's interventions. From talking to householders on each side of the road, it has seemed to me that the services they receive are indistinguishable.

Mr. Dubs: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the quality of the services given by Wandsworth, with all the cuts which have taken place in that borough, are comparable to those given in Lambeth? Has he any idea of the damage done by the cuts that Wandsworth council is imposing?

Mr. Shelton: The major cause of concern about the cuts in Wandsworth has been the closure of the swimming bath. None of the people to whom I spoke in Hazelbourne Road ever uses the swimming bath. They were not concerned about it.
The rates are merely the symptom of the problem in Lambeth. The cause is that costs in Lambeth are out of control. I am not talking about cuts, because there have not been any cuts in Lambeth. I am talking about bad housekeeping and about inefficiency. I am talking about ideological spending. I am talking about the complete irrelevance of need in the borough. I am talking, as I said, about gross inefficiency—Marxism in


action. I am talking about the Lambeth loonies who are running the council.
The work force in Wandsworth is 7,279—down by 298 in the past year. The figure for Lambeth, with an almost identical population, is 10,232—up by 396. For 1980–81, the estimate in Lambeth for white collar employees is 5,305, compared with 4,512 in 1978–79—an estimated increase of very nearly 800 in white collar employees alone.
It is not a matter of services in Lambeth; it is a matter of inefficiency and of bad housekeeping. I shall give some examples of this. We still have the same catalogue of spending idiocies and inefficiences. We have rent arrears continuing to run at about £3 million. The number of empty council properties is increasing. The borough is at the top of the shame league, and is drawing still further ahead. It now has over 4,000 empty properties, which means over £1 million in lost rent and rates. We have the costly and wasteful consumer advice service, which is still increasing. We have the costly and ill-founded council inquiry into the police.
We have dances and carnivals on the rates. We have grants to fringe Left-wing groups. The Union Place Resource Centre continues unabated—its march—led, no doubt, by the " Under Fives Against Fascism " and " Rock Against Thatcher " groups—not inventions of Peter Simple but happening in our constituency.
In Lambeth we have one council employee for every 28 people living in the borough. Lambeth overspent by £4·7 mil lion on its financial estimates last year. No wonder it has to spend £250,000 on its press and publicity services. I am deeply disturbed—as are the ratepayers and, I very much hope, the district auditor— about the use of ratepayers' money for the publication of polictical literature. I shall not weary the House with all the examples that I have here——

Mr. Stuart Holland: Because they are so few.

Mr. Shelton: Unless the hon. Gentleman is careful, I shall weary the House with all the examples. I have a great number of them. The first one, which is quite extraordinary, says:
 Winter swimming at Brockwell Lido ".

It goes on to say:
 This lido has been re-opened because Lambeth council has decided to fight the Government cuts ".
It has been re-opened, apparently, not so that people may swim there but because the council wishes to make a protest, by re-opening it, about the Government cuts.
I have here a letter which has been sent to every council tenant. It reads:
 Dear Tenant, Details of the increase in council rents and heating charges are enclosed.
It is an apologia for the fact the council is having to put up the council rents. The final paragraph says:
 Meanwhile, we are forced by financial and legal considerations to impose this rent increase. We ask all tenants to support us in our fight against the Tory Government's attack on working people in Lambeth.
Opposition Members may agree with it; and I accept that some people may believe it. But what I do not accept—and what, on reflection, Labour Members should not accept—is that those sentiments should be printed and published at the expense of the ratepayers of Lambeth and sent out on Lambeth council note-paper. That is a misuse of council funds. I hope that the matter will be taken up in other quarters and that a reprimand will be issued. It is a quite improper use of council funds.

Mr. Holland: Mr. Hollandrose——

Mr. Shelton: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Lambeth Local news-sheet has become famous—" infamous" would be a better word. I shall refer the House to some headlines. This one says:
 No to house sales and service cuts. Council to fight.
It also says: " Police to be investigated."
Another reads:
 Lambeth not alone in attack on Government blackmail. Thousands say no to cuts.
This one says:
We have decided to take our stand now. No cuts, and big campaign of protest.
Another headline says " Saved from the cuts." At the bottom it says "March against cuts." Obviously, the council is far more obsessed with the cuts than with the South Circular road——

Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shelton: In a moment. This one says:
 Government cuts force up rates... Heseltine slashes house building.
This is understandable and no doubt acceptable in a Labour Party publication. But we are discussing not a Labour Party publication but a publication financed by Lambeth's ratepayers, most of whom I suspect, are Conservative voters, if one includes the business rate. It is quite improper. If a Conservative council did that, every Opposition Member would be on his feet protesting, as I am protesting, and I look to hon. Members opposite to support my protest.

Mr. Holland: Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not introduced cuts and that they should not be commented on by the council? If the hon. Gentleman insists that the council does not have the right to express its policy in a publication of that kind, does he also deny that right to the Central Office of Information, for example, which is itself funded by public funds?

Mr. Shelton: I am saying that it is quite improper to use public funds for political purposes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a paragraph in the letter which I read a moment ago:
 We ask all tenants to support us in our fight against the Tory Government's attack ".
It does not say " the Government's" attack. It says " the Tory Government's attack ". I hope very much that the question whether this is political will be decided by people other than Opposition Members.
I have in my possession a copy of the district auditor's report for last year, which was published on 18 April. It makes very interesting reading. Unfortunately, a number of objections have been raised by ratepayers. I understand that for the first time in the history of Lambeth the auditor has had to leave them out of his report for a separate report at a later date. He says:
A Certificate of Completion to the report cannot be entered... because objections to these accounts... have still to be decided.
So there is no mention in the report of the principal problems which I suspect have been raised about, for example, the political use of public funds in printing such stuff as I have been reading, the level

of council rents, and perhaps many other matters. What remains in the report however is a damning indictment, albeit phrased in the rather timid language used normally by district auditors, of the bad housekeeping of this wretched council and the profligate use of funds with which it makes play.
The general rate fund balance was £8 million in 1977. In 1980, it was £9,207. It dropped from £8 million to £6 million, to £2 million and to £9,000. The auditor says:
 This is the result of decisions by the council to meet part of general expenditure from this... balance.
He goes on in stirring language:
 I share the view that it is insufficient as a working balance for Lambeth council.
I am sure that even Opposition Members will agree that £9,000 is insufficient. The auditor continues:
 In arriving at these balances, Lambeth council has taken no account of outstanding liabilities and bad debts (mainly arrears of housing rents which could be in excess of £1 million).
They have not been included. As I say, Lambeth loonies are running this council.
A later comment by the auditor is instructive to anyone attempting to discover how Lambeth council runs its business:
 One of the factors affecting the financial position of the council is overspending on the housing repairs budget by about £2 million, which is about 25 per cent. of the total budget.
According to the auditor, apparently the red light was put on in July 1979, shortly after the financial year started. The officers prepared a report and put it forward to the housing management subcommittee on 5 September. The Committee looked at it and, by a vote, withdrew it. It was not prepared to consider the officers' recommendations. At the full housing committee on 17 September, the officers again expressed their concern. No recommendation was made to take any action, other than to instruct the director to endeavour to control levels of expenditure.
The auditor pathetically remarks:
 When a decision is made that actual expenditure must be kept within the budget, then it is to be expected that the council will normally support proposals to this end submitted to them by the officers.
That does not apply to Lambeth.


When I read the report, my sympathies went out to this unfortunate, apparently rather timid, auditor. I have no doubt that he is an excellent auditor, but his language is extremely timid. I remind the House again of what he said:
 the council will normally support proposals to this end.
The auditor goes into the problem of homelessness. The council had an expenditure of £830,000 against a budget estimate of £350,000. Next year it is estimated to be £1·4 million. The auditor describes squatters as " a substantial problem." Then he deals with the internal audit. It is not often that a district auditor comments on the internal audit of a council. He says:
 The council's internal audit does not reach the standards normally expected... A comprehensive review of the structure, the organisation and the methods of working is needed.
I should think so
.
This auditor's report coupled—I trust and hope—with the decisions made about the objections raised by the ratepayers confirms the view which I have held for some time that it is a wretched council. It is a bad housekeeper, and it is profligate. It is inefficient, but it is also undemocratic and arrogant. A public meeting in Streatham was held on 22 April to which were invited the people of the area to ask questions and make comments about the rates. The meeting was well attended. It was chaired by a councillor, and the leader of the council was present. Three Conservative councillors of that ward were present. They were not allowed to ask questions or to speak. Eventually the audience discovered what was happening and started booing and shouting. The meeting was closed without any opportunity being given to the Conservatives present to ask questions or put forward their point of view. It was a blatant disregard, though quite understandable in the case of a Marxist council, of normal democratic procedures.
I come finally to what can be done. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe that reliance can be placed on the impact of rate increases always to change political control. It did in Wandsworth. I suspect that it will in Lambeth. But that cannot be relied on, because in

areas such as Lambeth the rates do not have a universal impact. The rate base is only about one-third of the voters of any area. Secondly, in parts of Lambeth a great many people receive fairly extensive rent rebates. Thirdly, when there are many people in local authority housing, they are cushioned by pegged rents. Council house rents in Lambeth have not been increased since 1976. Therefore, the tenants' cost of living does not go up by that much, and they can pay the rates.
I make two pleas. First, will the Government move more quickly towards ending domestic rating? Secondly, will they put auditors into councils that increase their rates above a certain percentage, to show how money can be saved, instead of there being a rate increase, and can the results be made public? Only by public opinion, through public knowledge of what is going on in Lambeth, can it be brought under control.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) made an almost identical speech six months ago. Even the jokes were the same. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's speech has improved with age. He compounded his problems by making it double the length, which could not have appealed to many of his hon. Friends who want to speak in the debate.
The common theme of the present Government in relation to their taxation and social services policies and to local government has been to penalise those most in need and to reward those best able to look after themselves. I was delighted that this common theme was roundly indicted by so many electors throughout Britain—unhappily, excluding those in the London area, who did not have the opportunity to vote yesterday—despite the rather squalid campaign by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It was noticeable that Labour did best in the more highly rated areas. That is because people are desperately alarmed about the cuts that are being made in social services, which they prize and want to see nourished and sustained.
The common theme of the present Government, particularly in their attitude towards local government affairs, is as destructive of decent standards of life—the


quality of life to which Conservative hon. Members have referred—as some of the acts of hooliganism that have rightly been condemned today on both sides of the House.
My own area has for long been recognised as one of great poverty and deprivation. That was recognised by a previous Secretary of State, now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was recognised to a greater extent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) when he was Secretary of State. He brought relief to areas such as mine in a positive way.
It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that no answer to the problems is to be found by throwing money around; but if we do not sustain the aid-programmes for the inner cities with money, we shall have no programmes at all. As the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—well knows, because he has been to my area many times, we unquestionably have severe problems with our housing conditions in Hackney—appalling overcrowding, homelessness, poor, virtually unendurable conditions, and indifference by the Greater London Council. We have problems of mental stress, heightened by the stressful conditions. They are not unique, but they abound in Hackney.
When Conservative Members condemn Hackney, among other areas, for increasing the rates, I reply that they have no understanding of the problems, no understanding of the needs for the social services that help to make life more tolerable for so many and that are now under attack from the Government. I am proud—not ashamed—that the Hackney council is not prepared to carry out a vendetta against its council tenants, as this Government would encourage.
I should like to illustrate some of the problems that we have faced. The rate support grant has been cut by £4 million. We have had to take £2 million from the balances to compensate for Government cuts. Otherwise, the rates would have increased even more. There have been savage cuts of £14 million by the Government in the housing improvement programme—in an area that I have already characterised as being desperately short of housing and where the need for housing improvement is clear.
Therefore, Hackney will be £20 million worse off in the next financial year as a result of this Government's activities. Coupled with that, we have inflation running at 19 per cent., and rising, and interest rates at record levels; and the local authority has had to allow £2·7 million to compensate for that.
Against that background, it is outrageous that the Secretary of State should engage in the pork barrel politics that he has indulged in, as a sort of inverted Robin Hood, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The shire counties have benefited from his interventions in local government politics and the poor and most deprived areas are having to make the most sacrifices. That is pork barrel politics on an unprecedented scale.
I turn briefly to the question of social services in my area. I must refer to the Government's more general approach in this respect. They are aiming at a reduction in real terms of 6·7 per cent. in spending on social services compared with 1979–80. It is not just the reduced growth—the euphemism used by the Secretary of State for Social Services—but a real reduction of 6·7 per cent.
The matter was put authentically by the Government's own advisory body, the Personal Social Services Council, which said recently:
 Cuts of the order envisaged by the government cannot be achieved, in the Council's view, without a serious deterioration in the quality and range of social services. Both statutory and voluntary sectors now face a mismatch of resources and responsibilities that neither greater cost effectiveness in service provision nor attempts to increase community participation—desirable as both are—can hope to reconcile. The prospects of those who rely on such services will be diminished to an extent that should be unacceptable in a just society.
That puts the hon. Member for Streatham in his place, and it comes from an authentic source.
The Government are trying to distance themselves from the public condemnation of the effects of their policies by concentrating cuts in the social services on those provided by local authorities. It is a myth that there is a panacea, that we can simply solve all the problems by cutting out waste. The Association of Directors of Social Services has said that to suggest that cuts can be financed painlessly in this way is totally unrealistic. I believe that that is right.
In my area, just as in many others, the poor and the handicapped will pay dearly for the present policies. They will not find them painless. The services most affected throughout the land—unless they are maintained by increased rates—will be residential care, home help and mobile meal services, social work services, grants for voluntary bodies, aids for the handicapped and holidays for the elderly and handicapped. May I say, in parenthesis, that one of the things that I most rejoiced in doing when I was chairman of the welfare committee in Hackney some years ago was introducing continental holidays for the handicapped, giving them something that they could not otherwise have hoped for. That needed public support. It is that kind of provision that is being imperilled by what is happening today.
Staff have to be trained; and immense cuts are being made in the staff training programme.
Although I should very much like to go into the matter in more detail, I shall conclude, because I am sensitive, as the hon Member for Streatham was not, to the fact that other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
This Government's policies will strike most heavily at many services specifically aimed at alleviating the misery of the old, the sick and the handicapped and those who find the stresses of present-day society intolerable. The Government will have to answer that indictment in due course. They will have to do so when the GLC elections come next year and when the local authority elections come later. Above all, I believe that they will be incapable of answering that indictment when the next general election comes in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The debate has ranged over a number of borough preoccupations of hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is understandable. The usual differences have emerged between the preoccupations of hon. Members with inner London borough constituencies and those with outer London borough constituencies.
Most of the comments that we have heard in the debate have come from hon. Members with inner London borough constituencies. That is understandable.

However, there is an intellectual gulf between those who represent inner areas and those who represent outer areas.
Often we in the outer London boroughs do not manage to realise the true severity of the extra problems facing the inner London boroughs—for example, areas of deprivation. Per contra, Members with inner London boroughs think that we in the outer London boroughs are referring to problems that are relatively light compared with their own.
Many of those who live in the outer London boroughs migrated to them at various stages in the hope of a better life and better living conditions. However, the struggle for any family in Britain—certainly in Greater London—is very much the same nowadays with inflation and rising costs. There is a tremendous preoccupation within all families with the huge increase in some domestic bills. That means that in the outer London boroughs the net economic struggle is the same.
As an outer London borough Member, I make no apologies for referring to problems that are different from those experienced by inner London Members but severe for those who reside in outer London.
I pay tribute to my local authority. I agreed with the devastating attack made by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on the grossly irresponsible local authority in Lambeth. I pay tribute to my local authority for the measured, balanced and disciplined way in which it has instituted a programme of financial control leading to a rate increase of about 26 per cent. for domestic ratepayers. At the same time it has managed, with considerable ingenuity, to maintain the most important services virtually intact. That has called for a tremendous amount of housekeeping, husbandry and financial self-discipline.
It is a reflection of the age in winch we live that, as a result of the first ominous signs of reduction in industrial employment in outer London boroughs, the development of deep-seated unemployment and redundancies taking place in large enterprises—an example in Harrow is Kodak, a major employer—that for the first time the largest employer in the borough is the local authority. I am glad


to add that the number employed by the local authority has not increased. There is stabilisation and a standstill. It is a sign of the times, however, that must be worrying to those concerned at all levels with the management of the London economy.
I shall be brief, as I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to participate. I shall make three different points rather quickly and I hope that my speech will not appear to be too disjointed.
I have been concerned recently about the need to promote home ownership of different sorts. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends are enthusiastic supporters of the programme of council house sales. I hope that local authorities will move fast to meet the natural and urgent demands of many of their tenants who want to become home owners. The programme will have a most beneficial sociological result in areas including outer London boroughs such as Harrow. The programme is going ahead in Harrow. There have been delays on valuations and estimated price agreements, for example, but I hope that the delays and difficulties will be ironed out as soon as possible.
A facet of home ownership that will be important in the outer London boroughs—especially in Harrow, and in Brent to a slightly lesser extent—is the large measure of co-ownership and housing associations. The great and complicated debate is about to begin on whether we can now enable co-owners to become real owners in specific developments by the transformation of their equity stake in the unit. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was able to confirm on Wednesday that a suitable amendment will be drafted to the Housing Bill so that the process may begin to take place.
It is, of course, a complex subject. However, my right hon. Friend confirmed that it would begin to happen as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. That will be tremendously important for many co-owners who wish to transform themselves into proper owners.
I do not underestimate the complexity of the operation. Agreements will have to be tailor-made for each housing association development. There will be co-owners who for various reasons, including 
advanced age, will not wish to take advantage of the programme, but it will be a tremendous forward development.
I have also been concerned about the strange and legal concept of landlord anonymity. As it is strange and legal I shall deal with it superficially and mention it only briefly. I am struck by the problems that it presents for tenants, be they tenants of a small landlord or a small property company or a large landlord or company.
There are real problems if tenants do not know the identity of their ultimate landlord or the owner of the property. There are a number of tenants in that position in Harrow, East. In legal terms it is a hugely complex issue. Therefore, I do not rush in with instant judgments. However, I hope that the Government will consider introducing fresh legislation to deal with it so that tenants will have the right to know the identity of their ultimate landlord.
The majority of landlords reveal themselves. The majority of small and large property companies are entirely reputable. A minority of landlords, through negligence or the wish to remain anonymous, are protected by a middleman or agent and will not reveal their identity to a tenant who may have some grievance or complaint about the property.
A preoccupation of mine over the years has been heavy lorries and juggernauts, which present an especially severe problem in the outer London area, including Harrow. Therefore, I make no apology for referring to it briefly.
I am the author of what is known in the trade—it is rather agreeable to have an Act that bears one's name—as the Dykes Act, the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Act 1973, which gives additional powers to local authorities to control the movement of juggernauts. I hope that statutory powers will be used much more thoughout the country, and especially in Greater London where the GLC is the relevant authority, to enable my long-suffering constituents to have more peace and greater relief. My constituents have to suffer the movements of the heaviest lorries on main roads in areas in which lorries should not be allowed. The construction of the outer orbital motorway will provide relief in four years time.
One of the special problems that we have in the outer London boroughs is excessive development. I am worried about the areas that front on to the green belt in my constituency called Stanmore and Harrow Weald, where the amount of physical development, at densities which were unacceptable only a few years ago, is beginning to reach unbearable proportions. It is having a major effect in changing the physical environment for those who are already there and who are paying substantial rates pro rata, partly for environmental and amenity reasons for which they do not have to apologise.
There is also the problem of commercial development in areas of residential development. There are schemes that are too large for the economic development of the area. This is happening in zones such as Harrow Weald and Stan-more. Severe problems are created and such development is very unfair on the residents. I hope that that will be heeded as my local authority considers the future envelopment of those areas.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) is not in the Chamber. I wish to thank him for his kind and encouraging remarks about the success of the Jubilee sports hall in Covent Garden. I must declare an interest, although it is not a financial one. I am an unpaid director of the charitable company that runs the hall. I hope that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne and other hon. Members who support his view will set about the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), as it is clear that his personal intervention within the Department has threatened the prospect of the hall's survival.
It is clear from the memorandum that was leaked to The Guardian that that action was taken because if the hall is saved by the Secretary of State for the Environment it will be politically embarrassing to the GLC at the next election. However, if the hall is not saved it will be an even bigger embarrassment to the Tories at the next GLC election.
Generally speaking, the standard of living of those whom we represent in London

has been severely reduced. That applies to social services, hospitals—to the rest of the National Health Service. Jobs are being lost There is an anti-London bias. The Government have taken specific measures that have damaged the interests of Londoners. However, individual Government policies have not damaged the interests of Londoners as much as the Government's overall policies. Those nationwide policies have a particularly damaging effect on inner urban areas, especially central London.
The Government's White Paper on public expenditure particularly affects housing. The quickest glance will tell one that Government expenditure on housing will be halved between now and 1983–84. As a result, dramatic cuts may be made in the amount of money spent on building and improving homes. Perhaps tenants will suffer massive rent increases. However, it is more likely that we shall see a combination of the two. Those who pay higher rents than they should will find that they have lost their money for ever. However, rent increases may be toned down in future in order to compensate for that loss. It may be argued that manpower and materials should be made available to enable house building and renovation programmes to go ahead, even if deferred by the Government's unfortunate activities.
The Government's policy on land may wreak lasting and irredeemable damage on those Londoners who are not well housed. The Government intend to establish a register of public land that is not being used by the bodies that own it. Many local authorities, Conservative-controlled as well as Labour-controlled, established land banks for housing development and associated purposes. They intended to use that land as and when money was made available. However, that money will not be made available. In the past that might have meant that the sites would lie fallow. They might have been used for temporary purposes. Building would have gone ahead as soon as the money had been made available. That will no longer apply.
I represent part of Camden. Reductions have been imposed on its housing investment programme, and further reductions are expected next year. Certain sites—particularly surplus railway sites—were bought by the council with the approval of the Department of the Environment,


with the approval of those of both political persuasions. Those sites will not now be used for housing development. The Government have refused to provide the necessary funds.
Such sites will be identified on the register of public land. The Government's friends—property speculators who have made massive contributions to Tory funds—will be able to pick off that land and buy it. The local authority may not wish to buy it. If the Housing Bill succeeds, speculators will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State. He will have the power to force public bodies to dispose of such land. No more land is being made available in inner London. Land that is used for non-residential purposes, or to provide parks and amenities round existing housing, will be gone for ever.
I hope that those Tory " wets" who are always planning to have a rebellion will rebel over this issue. I hope that they will do something about it. I am trying to think of a collective noun for " wet". However, having listened to the debate, I conclude that the collective noun might well be " flannel". We have heard a great deal of that today from the Conservative Party.
I hope that Conservative Members will straighten themselves out. Those who represent inner London constituencies should tell the Government to stop such practices. The Government have always said that the cuts are temporary, and that when things improve the country will be able to indulge itself and provide decent housing for everybody. However, if these sites are sold, and used for non-housing and non-local purposes, we shall not get them back. The next two or three years will be crucial for housing and amenities in inner London. I hope that borough councils, along with everyone else, will fight against these measures. I hope that Tory " wets" will wring themselves out. I hope that they will go to the Department of the Environment and persuade it to drop this provision from its ridiculous and monstrous Bill.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): This is an important debate and many hon. Members representing London constituencies have indicated that they wish to take part. The last three speakers have set an excellent example.

Speeches of about 10 minutes will enable me to call all those hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Of necessity the debate has been wide ranging. One would expect to find a wide variety of problems in a city the size of London. I shall therefore attempt to restrict my remarks to two subjects. I shall try to keep to the target that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have set.
It is a shame that the Labour Party has announced that it is not in favour of the south orbital route. Traffic has a major effect on the environment of my constituency, in North-East London. That can be resolved only by a suitable road network. Traffic should be taken away from residential areas. In 1973, the Labour Party abandoned the road network planned for the whole of London. I was very disappointed that it did so. Only by introducing such a system into the metropolis could we have caught up with the environmental conditions enjoyed by most in many other major cities in the world. Such conditions are lacking in London.
The issue has taken on political significance and has become worthy of this type of statement, because those who find themselves on the route of the proposed network experience great terror. They feel that they will suffer a grave injustice as regards compensation on the compulsory acquisition of their property. Successfully to resolve this issue, we must ensure that people are compensated for the fact that they are unwilling sellers. They are entitled to expect a price higher than the market price for their property.
Such compensation would save an enormous amount of time and an adequate transport network might be introduced more quickly. The acquisition of land and buildings on any route normally amounts to less than 10 per cent. of the full cost of the road works. If that is so, those whose property is compulsorily purchased should receive greater compensation. Such compensation would add but a small percentage to the total bill and the whole process would be speeded up. If the amount of compensation given to an unwilling seller were increased by 20 per cent. much of the terror might be reduced. Owners find that once their property has been blighted it becomes


—whether they like it or not—less marketable. They do not receive adequate compensation and cannot find alternative accommodation which is both suitable and to their liking. I therefore hope that we can turn our attention to that aspect of acquisition. The effect would be lasting and helpful to the economy of our capital.
Another aspect that causes me concern is shorthold tenancies. My concern is not the same as that of Labour Members. Shorthold is not the answer in London. Fair rents assessed under the present rules are not likely to produce the desired result. The great upsurge of interest by outside agencies in the provision of residential accommodation will not result from fair rent officers setting the level of rents, as at present. The only solution is to ensure that the cost of construction is taken into account in assessing fair rent. We should not allow the subsidies required to help those who cannot afford to pay a reasonable rent to confuse the issue of the total cost involved. In assessing a fair rent, scarcity value should not be attributed to the cost of construction. It is scarcity value that the fair rent officer should ignore when accessing a fair rent.
If the cost of construction was taken into account the market would be opened up to organisations such as insurance companies, pension funds and, believe it or not, the trade union movement, which has enormous funds to invest on the stock market. There is no reason why trade unions should not be encouraged to play their role in the provision of private accommodation, as in other countries. If the rent was at least 8· per cent. of the total cost of construction, even allowing for the fact that the land has to be acquired, the benefit of future increases should outweigh the reluctance of these wealthy organisations to play their part in the provision of residential accommodation. I urge the Minister to ensure that due account is taken of that issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt again. I thought that the Minister had spoken, but he has not. Therefore, in order to facilitate everyone who wishes to speak, speeches will have to last only about six minutes.

Mr. Bryan Magee: It is a great benefit to London that this debate is ventilating such a wide range of issues of importance to Londoners. However, in order to be brief, I shall not offer a thinly spread survey of many issues but devote my remarks to one—the construction of a new motorway in the northeastern segment of London, of urgent and enormous importance to a vast section of the capital's population.
Everyone accepts that there is urgent need for a new M11 link road from Red-bridge to Hackney. The controversy is over the six alternative schemes. Five have been put forward by designers backed by the Ministry of Transport, and one is the production of local architects and designers—known, after Mr. Lister and Mr. Goldsmith, who produced the designs, as the Lister-Goldsmith plan.
Argument about those alternative schemes has been going on for several years, but as a result of all the discussion and debate an astonishing unanimity has developed locally on which scheme is to be preferred. Almost everyone in the two boroughs chiefly concerned, Red-bridge and Waltham Forest, is agreed that the Lister-Goldsmith plan is vastly to be preferred to the other five. It is not a party political question. Local bodies backing the plan include the Wan-stead Conservative Association, the Wan-stead Liberal Party, the Wanstead Residents Association, the Leyton Labour Party, the Leyton Liberal Party, the Leyton Society, the conservators of Epping Forest, the Friends of Epping Forest and the regional branch of the Royal Institute of British Architects. So the preference extends across the whole range of poitical opinion, and throughout responsible local organisations.
One of the local Members of Parliament is the Secretary of State for Social Services. Until he entered the Cabinet he was one of the warmest public advocates of the plan. I only hope he is pursuing his advocacy of that plan in the privacy of Government and the Cabinet. For the Government are about to make their decision; and I regret to say that all the advance signals are that they will make the wrong decision. I am devoting my speech to the subject in the hope of doing a little to avert that.
Every one of the five schemes that the local people do not want would create a surface ribbon of concrete and pollution that would split in two the three main local communities of Wanstead, Leyton-stone and Leyton. Those long-standing communities would be sliced down the middle, and their life would be permanently disrupted. All local journeys for local vehicles would become awkward and involve long detours, people would be cut off from shops, and there would be all the other damaging effects to local life that we have seen from the worst of road schemes elsewhere.
It is typical of the divorce from reality of the working party that it offers as an enticement that there will be long pedestrian subways to cope with these problems. I do not know where the members of the working party live, but for people living in East London few prospects are more frightening. Long pedestrian subways in East London are almost certain to be dangerous places, especially at night. Nor will they be aesthetically pleasing. It is almost equally certain that they will soon come to display large areas of pornographic grafitti. They will neither be lovely places to go through when safe nor safe places when dark. People are right to be frightened at the prospect.
All five schemes will put a box around one of the most popular and important parts of Epping Forest and shut it off from the remainder. They will all completely split Wanstead Flats from Epping Forest altogether. The roads will also themselves swallow up large strips of Epping Forest land.
The working party admits that when it made its recommendations it had not taken account of the fact that the Government are proposing to develop the third London airport at Stansted. That will vastly increase the traffic flow between central London and Stansted, and that traffic will have to go through north-east London. None of the five schemes is designed to bear that increased traffic load. If one of them is adopted, yet new roads will need to be built to cope with the increased load between now and the end of the century, with all the consequences that I have already mentioned redoubled, and with an inevitable increase in costs.
The Lister-Goldsmith plan is the only one genuinely integrated with the needs of the environment. It is a much more

direct route than the alternatives. It achieves that by the cut-and-cover technique—that it is to say, most of the road is planned to go under ground. After the sunken road has been built it is roofed level with the surrounding surface, and then that " roof " turned partly into local roads and partly into a long strip of parkland which would join up with Epping Forest. That would result in no splitting of the communities, no boxing off of the forest, no pollution or noise for local inhabitants, very few of the dreaded pedestrian subways, and no disruption of local traffic, which would be separated entirely from the through traffic.
There is an enormous need in East London for more green space, and we would get not only the amenity of the road itself but the vastly increased amenity provided by the long strip of park on top of the road. Furthermore, the scheme is the only one of the six schemes which has the capacity to cope with the extra traffic that will be generated by the development of Stansted airport. Both these things should be included in the reckoning of what we shall get for our money, for the only objection to the scheme is that it will cost marginally more than the alternatives. But the difference between it and any alternative that has any practical chance of being adopted is, in financial terms, comparatively small. I maintain that, because East London is such a notoriously socially deprived area, the element of redistribution of resources involved in making such a route is more than justified. The enormous increase in amenities that it would bring to East London, and the obviating of unnecessary new social problems, is worth the marginal difference in expenditure.
I therefore urge the Government, while there is still time, to opt for this scheme. As I mentioned earlier, one of the most distinguished members of the Cabinet has been arguing for it for a long time. I myself commended it in my maiden speech as long as six years ago. Now that, after all these years, the moment of decision is finally upon us, I commend it again, and with all my heart, for I do so knowing that I speak for all aspects of political opinion and all responsible organised local bodies.

Mr. John Page: The one matter that is of greater concern than


any other at this moment to my constituents, and to the people of London, is the holding of hostages by force of arms at the Iranian embassy in Knights-bridge.
We congratulate the police on their calm and brilliant handling of this disgraceful incident and pray, most sincerely, that their policies will be successful. In case there was any late news I looked just now at the tapes. The only message there was that the police constable who is being held hostage has sent a message to his wife telling her to keep her chin up. I think that is a fine attitude on the part of the British people who are being held.
Another matter of intense interest to my constituents, to the people of London and to the country in general is the identity of these pro-and anti-Ayatollah demonstrators who are upsetting local residents and generally turning the area into a bear garden. Are they students, and, if so, are they attending to their studies? There is also the question of who is paying for their studies.
Are they, possibly, illegal immigrants living off the sale of drugs? I think that the people of London, and of the country, are fed up with this demonstration in the road. Efforts should be made to find out who these people are. We should find out if they are entitled to be here and stop them from holding demonstrations which are upsetting the local community.
I know that my constituents are disgusted by the demonstrations we see on television. I have also had the opportunity of speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is deeply aware of the outrage of his constituents, who are even more directly affected than are mine by what is going on.
This is Knightsbridge, London, not Ayatollah Square, Tehran. I see no reason why the Iranian Embassy in London should be turned into a replica of the American Embassy in Tehran. The vulgarity and violence of the behaviour of these crowds is handicapping the police in carrying out their duty and it will work against the British " cool-it" technique in dealing with the problem.
If I had had the time I would have developed my theme concerning the police more elegantly. I would have spoken about the role of the police and particularly the role of the Special Constabulary in dealing with the violence mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Particularly, the Special Constabulary in London, under Chief Commandant Arthur A. Hammond, are doing an exceptional job.
Recruitment is good and the standard of volunteers coming forward is first class. However, the numbers are still small and though I know that it would be unwise to try to plan a crash programme to increase the size of the special constabulary I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the possibility of the expansion of this fine national voluntary service, to its maximum.
This debate, in line with most debates on London, might well be a catalogue of miserable facts. I will mention three general and light-hearted aspects of London and say something about the great things that have been achieved by the Greater London Council.
First, there is the brilliant cleanliness of the Thames. Secondly, there is the attraction of our newly cleaned buildings which is the result of the Clean Air Act. What a great day it will be when Westminster Abbey—which has received a donation from the GLC—will reappear in its full splendour after being cleaned.
There is the beauty of our parks through which it is a joy to walk in the daytime. There is also the proud beauty of the private gardens in the outer London constituencies which give so much pleasure to those of us who drive through those areas.
The GLC has achieved great things. It has reduced its staff by 3,500 and thus saved £28 million a year. In five years the GLC has increased rates by 24 per cent.—4 per cent. a year only—as opposed to Lambeth's 110 per cent. in two years. About 100,000 dwellings have been transferred to district councils and 10,000 houses have been sold and mortgages granted for another 10,000. Seventy-five per cent. of the income from rates is devoted to the inner city and—this is so often forgotten—the council has repaid all outstanding external non-housing debt, amounting to £130 million. That is


an achievement in London of which we can all be proud.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Several hon. Members have talked about Lambeth council and made comparisons with Wandsworth council. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) is no longer in the Chamber. I would have liked to bet the hon. Gentleman that after the next local elections in London, Lambeth will stay Labour and Wandsworth will go Labour.
Wandsworth council has virtually abdicated its responsibilities for the homeless, the badly housed, the elderly, the handicapped and children. It has abdicated its responsibilities for the cultural and social life of the borough. The only positive thing that it seems to have done is impose mammoth rent increases on council tenants as a way of making them pay for the bulk of the borough's services.
The council has got itself into confrontation with the majority of the community that it is supposed to serve. That is why, at a nursery school in Nightingale Lane in my constituency, mothers and children are sitting in in protest against its threatened closure and why the local community are taking the same action at a library for children in Batter-sea.
The conclusion can only be that local people in Wandsworth are not prepared to see their local services decimated without protesting against a council which seems to have lost all touch with reality.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) talked about the ILEA. I am sorry that he is not here, because he said some misleading things.
What is the history of the ridiculous proposal to close down ILEA and hand its responsibilities over to the London boroughs? The idea appeared from nowhere last July, put forward by the leader of the Wandsworth council. It had been the subject of no discussion at the previous local election or of any local consultation. It was foisted on the local community without previous discussion.
One wonders where the idea came from. It has no parental or other support in Wandsworth. The only people in Wandsworth who have made representa-

tions in favour of the proposal to the Secretary of State for Education and Science are the leader of the council and the council itself. The rest of public opinion has been solidly against it
Outside Wandsworth, the Secretary of State has had eight representations in favour of the proposal—all from Conservative politicians or organisations—and five of the eight have had nothing to do with inner London, including the Worthing Conservative Association. If that is where the Conservatives have to go for support for this ridiculous proposal, it would be better to drop it forthwith.
More important, not one educational argument has been put forward for breaking up ILEA. It has been claimed that ILEA is not as good as it might be. Of course it is not perfect, but no argument has been adduced to show that there would be any benefit to the children of London if educational responsibility were transferred to the boroughs.
The Marshall report under the Conservative-controlled GLC, did not recommend the break-up. On 22 February this year, The Times Educational Supplement, speaking of the Sherlock report about breaking up ILEA, said that it was
 a hasty and unbelievably superficial document that achieves the rare distinction of actually saying less than leaks have suggested. The figures used break every rule in the book in that they are selective, out of date, fail to compare like with like, or what goes in with what comes out.
That is condemnation indeed.
I know of no major city in the world where the educational arrangements are sub-divided into a number of individual authorities. After all, ILEA covers many of the most deprived parts of the country. It is surely misleading to compare its educational performance with that of other educational authorities covering both deprived and non-deprived areas.
This proposal should be dropped forthwith. It is a matter of great regret that the Secretary of State is now setting up a more formal investigation, presumably to make up for the deficiencies of the proposals put forward so far. I hope that the result will be that this silly proposal is dropped and that we shall hear no more of it. It would damage the future of the children of London.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: As I wish to talk about housing and mortgages, particularly relating to London, I suppose I should declare an interest as an estate agent and surveyor.
I have always believed that we should encourage young people in the private sector and public housing tenants to purchase their properties. In the last few months, there has been a scarcity of building society money to provide the funds for those two groups to do so.
The Chancellor gave some relief in the Budget with regard to stamp duty. It must be remembered that in London and the South-East house prices are, and will remain in the foreseeable future, much higher than in other parts of the country. The decision on stamp duty, therefore, does not help London so much. It is difficult to buy a property in any part of London below £23,000 or £24,000. I am concerned that the quota from which the GLC has in the past been able to grant loans in the private sector has been cut off by the Department of the Environment. This programme has helped the home loans situation in both the private and public sectors. It has helped in the private sector especially in the inner city areas.
The GLC, for a number of years, has been restricting loans mainly to inner city areas. When it has granted loans in outer London areas, the area chosen has always been adjacent to the inner city. Only part of my constituency qualified for GLC mortgages. This helped first-time buyers and young people in the conurbation.
I understand that, under the GLC programme, there are some 9,000 sales in the pipeline that have yet to be completed. A mortgage for those who have already made application and received an offer will be honoured. I am worried about those young people and others wanting to buy their council houses who have not yet approached the GLC or, if they have made an approach, have not yet received an offer. Many of those people may be disappointed during the next year.
I recognise that the Secretary of State has announced that more facilities will be made available to local authorities next year. But this means that there is likely to be a void period of 12

months during which some people will be disappointed. I understand that the GLC has approached the Secretary of State about the possibility of utilising funds already available to the council. I have referred to the fact that 9,000 sales are in the pipeline. I understand that there will be a £40 million profit from those sales. The GLC has also embarked on the disposal of land that will bring in another £72 million.
I plead with the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to allowing the GLC to utilise these finances to bridge the gap that could occur in the forthcoming year so that many people will not be disappointed in their hopes of owning a home.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: This debate indicates many of the problems facing the people of London, made worse as a result of Government policies. One of the worst problems is the need of people for a decent home at a reasonable rent. This basic right of all people is denied to hundreds of thousands of people living in this city. About 3,000 homeless families are living in temporary accommodation in bed and breakfast hotels and hostels, or as squatters in old derelict properties. A considerable number are to be found in the constituency that I represent. Many have been sent by Tory councils such as Wandsworth which have not faced up to their responsibilities towards their citizens. There are about 200,000 households in London registered on local housing waiting lists, 12,000 of them in Hackney. Another 200,000 have to share the house in which they live with others. Another 45,000 households, including 15,000 single parent families, are forced to live with relatives having no home of their own. In Hackney over 5,000 single persons are applicants for homes in that area.
Nearly 200,000 families are living in overcrowded conditions in London. It is estimated that over 300,000 homes are unfit for human habitation. They lack flush toilets, baths or hot water supplies. Yet it is estimated that over 100,000 homes are standing empty and that one in four of them has been empty for more than two years. Over 2,000 of those empty properties are in Hackney. About 25,000 of them are owned by the Tory-controlled GLC. In spite of


London's massive housing problems the Tory GLC is selling council houses and cutting back on building houses to let. Tenancy transfers are now almost impossible.
In the blue book of atrocities—the Government's expenditure plans for 1980–81—we find that the Government are cutting £118 million off current housing expenditure and £547 million off local authorities' housing capital expenditure. The total cuts are such that by next year housing expenditure will have been cut by 50 per cent. since 1974–75.
All local authority council house building and rehabilitation schemes are being slashed because of the Government's monetary policies and massive interest charges. Rents and rates are rocketing because of the Government's economic policies, as described in the blue book of atrocities.
A three-bedroomed house costing about £25,000 to build costs the ratepayers and tenants in a 60-year period over £200,000 because of interest charges. If an economic rent were charged for such a house tenants would have to pay £80 a week.
We live in a moneylenders' paradise and we have a moneylenders' Government. The Tory Party and the Tory Government look after the rich moneylenders. I end with a quote from a well-known Tory, Winston Churchill. He said that the Tory Party was:
 The Party of the rich against the poor; of the upper classes and their dependants against the masses; of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy and the strong, against the left-out and shut-out millions of the weak and poor.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The debate has ranged over a number of topics in which London has an interest. Many problems of social deprivation, housing and unemployment have been mentioned. One problem is not peculiar to London, but London has a particular interest in it. I refer to the subject of law and order. Nothing could be more important.
The Metropolitan Police is the finest police force of any large capital city in the world. I sometimes wonder whether we deserve such excellent police, bearing in mind the numerous criticisms of individual members of the force by politi-

cians and others who simply do not appreciate how lucky they are to have the Metropolitan Police to defend them.
The Metropolitan Police force is pathetically small in relation to the scale of its duties and responsibilities. About 22,000 men and women are members of the force out of an establishment of about 26,000, so it is 4,000 short. In addition, the establishment was set some years ago at a time when indictable crimes numbered only 250,000 a year. The number of indictable offences recorded in the last report of the Commissioner was over 500,000. So, with almost the same number of men, the force is expected to deal with almost twice the amount of crime. In addition, it is expected to discharge particular functions. It is required to establish special squads such as the fraud squad and the porn quad, and special duty groups and others which are peculiar to the capital. The Metropolitan Police also has to back up the numerous provincial forces and is expected from time to time to send its men out on detachment to other parts of the world.
In view of all that, we must re-consider the strength and establishment of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the demands made upon them. Current events show that sudden demands are made from time to time which result in a fall in the reserves and the strength of the police. Fortunately, in London—and I say "fortunately " because it helps to preserve the safety of citizens—the policy of the Commissioner in respect of demonstrations has been to use sheer manpower. In that way there has been a great deal of success in coping with the sort of demonstrations which in other cities have resulted in terrible violence. To a great extent, we have avoided that in London and we should be thankful for that. However, it simply means that we are relying on manpower to deal with violent demonstrations. It means also that the men who are required for these purposes have to give up their weekend leaves and are required to suffer loss in many other ways.
Against the tremendous contribution that the London police make must be set the few cases where individual policemen do not live up to the high standards that we expect of them. I hope that the Operation Countryman investigation, which has been much exaggerated by the media, can be brought to a speedy conclusion so


that the appropriate trials and prosecutions can take place soon. This has for long been a running sore and it is damaging the morale of the London police, 99·95 per cent. of whose members are honest and above the sort of suspicion which is generated by the media as a result of Operation Countryman.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made an important point about the attitude of councils which, like Lewisham, are threatening to cut off the police precept this year. I believe that threat is stupid and irresponsible because, if the people of Lewisham were deprived of the services of the police as a result of that threat by their elected council, they would certainly know immediately just how much they depend on the police for their law and order.
There is a further point I wish to make concerning police and the way in which we should back them up. The disturbance at Neasden Underground station recently was on railway property. I understand that the London Transport policy is that when a disturbance of that kind arises, London Transport must first be informed. If London Transport feels that it is a matter for its own police—the British Transport Police—it tells them. If it feels that it is necessary to call in the Metropolitan Police, it does so. It should be unnecessary with an incident such as that for the Metropolitan Police to have to wait to be called in by a local, small and much less efficient force. The Metropolitan Police should have overall strategic and tactical control of all police in London, including the British Transport Police.
The Metropolitan Police need and deserve our full support. It is London's duty to provide and help maintain their high standards.

Mr. Clive Soley: The time left available will force me to be very brief. The subject on which I wish to speak is of great importance, perhaps the most important, not only to my constituency and London but also to the nation as a whole, and I believe that we must set aside time to debate it in more depth. I refer to race relations.
I represent a constituency which contains a significant number of ethnic minority groups. I am proud of that fact. I have always said that I would be proud of it. During the general election, I said that I would do everything possible to improve the position of ethnic minority groups in our society. I feel strongly that if other Members of Parliament did that, we might be able to give a lead to those who are looking for such a lead, and for a higher moral standard, than that which is often provided by those who adopt more tribal and primeval attitudes towards ethnic minority groups.
We should distinguish between prejudice and discrimination. I regard prejudice as a psychological state which is very difficult to change, although it is possible to do so. It is fundamentally dangerous, because it is people who are basically prejudiced who end up supporting the Adolf Hitlers of this world. In a way, black and brown people can deal with prejudice which is stated and overt, but it is much more difficult to deal with discrimination which is hidden. That is something which in a number of ways runs throughout our society.
In 1969, the Cullingworth report suggested that we should count the representation of ethnic minorities in housing. I then felt that that was wrong, but over the years I have become convinced by the arguments of the ethnic minority groups and others involved that that is absolutely right. I very much regret that the ethnic question has been left out of the census. While I accept all the problems that emerged in Haringey, I believe that it is vital to include that question. I would have preferred a simple question, along the lines of " How do you see yourself? ", to which the reply could have been " Black British, brown British or other, please specify.". The thing which scared the ethnic minority groups in Haringey so much was that the word " British" was not included and they feared deportation. I make no bones about it that, so far as I am concerned, the ethnic minority groups in my area are British, be they Irish British, European British, West Indian British or whatever. That is an aspect of great importance.
The most important area that I want to stress relates to black unemployment,


especially among young blacks. Potentially it is a highly explosive issue. We have seen the problems which it can cause, both in Notting Hill and Bristol. If something is not done about the black unemployment rate, which so far as I can make out is about double the white unemployment rate in some areas, we shall build up serious trouble for the future and we are operating double standards which cannot be condoned.
We are doing the same with regard to housing. Despite all the rumours which are thrown around, the evidence is becoming increasingly weighty that black and brown groups are under-represented in council housing, particularly good council housing. That produces major problems in certain areas which eventually become ghettos. Again, I believe that that problem requires drastic action.
I should like to finish by referring to a positive approach. In a way, the most worrying area in London is the East End. I do not represent an East End constituency, but I think we all accept that it is there that the problem of the National Front has been most severe. It worries me very much when I see youngsters, sometimes 15, 16 or 17 years of age, parading the Union Jack and at the same time mouthing racialist slogans, writing them on walls and attending marches everywhere. Unless we do something about that, we shall again cause problems for the future.
We must tackle this matter at a basic level. We cannot change the parental attitudes, which are probably largely responsible, but I ask the Minister to consider making approaches to his relevant colleagues to devote extra money to the areas with that type of problem so that both teachers and children may be given greater opportunities of exploring ways of improving the inter-racial atmosphere. Apart from anything else, that can be done by visits to Commonwealth countries, and I emphasise that.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I begin by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I assure him that the ratepayers and electors of the London borough of Enfield do not share his enthusiasm for the return of a Labour-controlled council. They only have to

look to the activity of the Labour group on the council, who voted against the 30 per cent. increase in rates on the grounds that the increase was not great enough.
I should like to refer to the remarks that I made in the Adjournment debate on Monday. I said then that Enfield was a booming industrial area and that it was dependent for its future industrial growth on the provision of adequate infrastructure. I am happy to be able to tell the House that in at least two respects there has been some marginal improvement, as a result of pressure from local groups. There has been some improvement in the train and bus services between Enfield and inner London.
Unfortunately, however, the area has received two setbacks in the past week. Last Monday the GLC decided that there should be no direct link between the new north-south industrial relief road, which is designed to take industrial traffic from the industrial area of the Lea Valley on to the M25. I regard that decision as both misguided and extremely shortsighted. A direct link between those two roads is inevitable in time, even if the planners do not recognise it now. I shall be looking to the GLC and to the Government for every possible assistance for those whose homes will be affected by the new routing of the north-south road.
Enfield has suffered from the decision of the Manpower Services Commission to go ahead with the building of a skill-centre in Camden, stating merely that it may review the decision to close the Enfield skillcentre when the Camden centre becomes operational. I do not understand the logic of that decision. The majority of people who are being retrained in Camden will be able to look for jobs only in the Lea Valley industrial area and Brimsdown in east Enfield.
If the Manpower Services Commission is really serious in its proposal to examine the future of the Enfield centre in two years, it should start now to discuss with local and regional union representatives and shop stewards whether the trade unions at a local level—I stress local level—will stop classing people who have been retrained at the skillcentres as unskilled. Unless the unions recognise that people who have been through the retraining process at the skillcentres are skilled, and should be treated accordingly, unfortunately there will continue to be


far too low a take-up of the available training places at the skillcentres.
I turn now to another aspect of suburban life—the frightening growth in lawlessness and vandalism. It is unfortunate that in suburban London we are now beginning to see the amount of lawlessness and violence that has become accepted as part of everyday life in inner London. There is no doubt that lawlessness has increased over the past few years. Time and time again we read in the weekly press about people being mugged, stones being thrown at buses, and stations being completely vandalised. It is a most disturbing trend.
Recently we have had evidence that a bout of glue-sniffing has hit part of Enfield, and that youngsters of 16, 18 and 19 have deliberately involved young children of 7 or 8 in that practice. There is evidence that glue-sniffing parties have been followed by a number of violent acts against property. The unfortunate thing is that far too many parents either do not care what their children are doing or do not seem to know what they are doing.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I simply wish to draw to the attention of the hon. Member that the Minister will be replying in about five minutes, and that we hope to have yet another contribution by an Opposition Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for me.

Mr. Eggar: I shall be drawing my remarks speedily to a conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
No one claims that there is an easy solution to the problem of vandalism, but the State can play a part by increasing the number of police on the beat. The police force in Enfield is seriously under strength at the moment. While there is no lack of recruits to the Metropolitan Police, there is a shortage of training places. I am concerned that in allocating the newly trained men between the inner London divisions and the outer London divisions, there may well be a temptation to put them into inner London. Outer London needs additional police urgently, and I hope that preference in allocation will not be given to inner London.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Several very important issues have been raised during the debate on London. One is the future of the Inner London Education Authority, and I regret that several Conservative Members failed to take into account the reason why ILEA has problems—especially the syndrome of deprivation to be found among the social and economic class that is concentrated in the inner London area. This relates, for example, to the job prospects of the young and, therefore, to their expectations of the gain to them from education. The breakup of the ILEA also would have serious implications in the sense that it would no longer make as easily possible the coordination of the best available schools for children across inter-borough boundaries.
A further important issue raised today concerns the so-called free enterprise zones. These, in my personal judgment, would be of no effective advantage either to London or to the rest of the country. Although some local authorities would be rebated the rates which they forgo, there is no evidence whatever that incentives alone would attract small enterprise and create jobs. There is much evidence to the contrary. The biggest problem for small firms is not, as assumed by the Government, the burden of taxation, but in practice the increased power of big business and the squeezing of small firms into the lower end of traditional markets—here also is the problem of the small entrepreneur, who, through his failure to find a successor, will disinvest in his enterprise rather than continue it.
Reference has been made to the manifesto of the Labour Party for the Greater London Council elections next year. The proposals made in the manifesto for municipal and co-operative enterprise over the whole of the Greater London area offer a much better based future for the economy of London than do the so-called free enterprise zones.
With regard to housing—and in particular the underlying problems of housing—it is clear that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), in his intemperate and, in my view, unfounded attack on the so-called housekeeping of the Lambeth council, has failed to direct himself to the main problem. The problem is that


there is overcrowding in the inner London area. Various councils of both political complexions tried at one stage to solve that problem by building upwards. We know what happened to the tower block solution. We know what was the response of residents.
With the pressure in the inner city and with crowded space, the only real solution is to move at least a part of the population—where they choose to do so—by means of inter-borough nomination schemes into the Greater London area as a whole. But this Government have slammed the door on the inner city areas with their policies on council house sales. Their massive cuts in projected council house building will aggravate the fundamental problem.
In effect, the hon. Member for Streatham took a caricature view of the problems facing Lambeth council with a Mickey Mouse monetarist approach that it is simply a matter of balancing budgets rather than solving problems. In his enthusiasm to lead a virtual ratepayers' revolt from Streatham, he should pay attention to the problems caused by public expenditure cuts for those who support his party and who back it by contributions to party funds.
At least two major builders—Higgs and Hill and Marshall-Andrew—have recently come off the tender list of the Greater London council as a result of their financial difficulties because of the public housing cuts. It is not only the working people in my constituency who suffer. It is even private enterprise itself.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: No one need worry: I shall not make the speech that I intended to make. However, I wish to explain one or two matters.
London is the greatest city in the world. It is not just a series of constituencies put together whose representatives can come here and make constituency speeches about London.
I had intended to make a wholly constructive speech about the future of tourism in London, about the environment and about the necessity for a policy of cleanliness, and I am happy to say that one of my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will be opening

a cleaner city campaign on Tuesday of next week.
I wanted to discuss with the House, if I may put it that way, measures which should be taken in what is, as I have said already, the greatest city in the world. It is also the most prosperous city. Listening to the morbid tones adopted by Opposition Members, one felt that everything seemed to be wrong. However, I remind the House that each year we have 20 million visitors, 8½ million of them foreign visitors and 11½ million visitors of our own. They cannot all be wrong. We have 100 existing hotels which are good and cheap. In Oxford Street alone, £250 million is spent annually according to the traders' association. Against that background, we are trying now to get a theatregoers club going.
I beg hon. Members representing London constituencies to recognise that they have an extremely good London Tourist Board and the English Tourist Board and that a great deal is being done to help London retain its position as the greatest and most prosperous city in the world.
I live in London. I do not represent a London constituency. Because of that, I have had to wait just in case hon. Members representing London seats were not sufficient in number to carry the day. They have taken up nearly all the available time, and I have been shut out. I say merely that, either during some not-too-distant debate on the Adjournment for a recess or on some other early occasion, I hope that I shall have an opportunity to address the House—I am the chairman of the tourism committee of my party—on matters which I believe have an immense and constructive bearing on the future of London.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I have attended all the debates on London over the past six years, and I have spoken in nearly all of them. All these debates have been of a high quality, and today's has been no exception, doubtless because the capital attracts the best Members of Parliament.
I shall try to deal with as many matters as possible in my remarks. I shall write to those hon. Members whose comments I cannot cover in the time available to me.
Several Opposition Members tried to gain some comfort from the results of the municipal elections yesterday, which I interpret as a welcome swing back of popular support to the Government after some recent by-elections and opinion polls. The Labour Party got five out of eight seats in Liverpool last May, but it failed to gain control of Liverpool yesterday. How hon. Members can draw any comfort from what happened, I fail to understand.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown), who indulged in one or two exaggerations. My notes of what he said include the following: "The Government have declared war on geriatric patients... The great city has been brought to its knees... Life is becoming impossible... Primary health care is almost non-existent." It is an insult to the intelligence of Londoners to describe their capital in those terms.
The hon. Gentleman's serious point was that the Government's housing and transport policies were a return to those of the 1930s. We would say that the hon. Gentleman's solution, of a greater reliance on statutory powers in housing or transport, has not worked. We seek a more effective partnership between the public sector and the private sector, particularly in housing, to avoid reliance on a monopoly. That reliance has resulted in many of the problems that doubtless many London Members will shortly hear in their surgeries from people who live in large, unpopular council estates and tower blocks. If we had a housing system that was more responsive to people's needs and the forces of the market, would so much housing stock in London be devoted to a form of tenure and a type of accommodation that people clearly do not want?
The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about unemployment. He said that it had risen by 20 per cent. in Hackney during the past year. That is true, but between March 1974 and May 1979 it rose by 127 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt), who made a constructive and balanced speech, outlining the positive steps taken by this Government. In particular, he spoke about the

quality of life and about tourists, whose custom the capital needs. I refer my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) to a perceptive publication—" Tourism—Blessing or Blight? ", which I wrote about six years ago and which looked at the questions that tourism poses a capital city. It says that one must devise a strategy to ensure that one obtains the benefits of tourism without being saddled with all its problems.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the police, as did other hon. Members. They expressed their concern about the possible deterioration in relations between the police and young people in parts of London. I think that we all agree that the Metropolitan Police have a most difficult job, and try to do it very well. The Commissioner attaches the greatest importance to maintaining a good relationship between the police and all sections of the community. He has recently commissioned a study of the problem by the Policy Studies Institute, with a view to finding better ways of improving relations
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Jubilee Hall; and what he said was echoed by other hon. Members. It is a matter for the GLC, which is the responsible local planning authority and is the owner of the site. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to comment, particularly as a scheme by the Jewish Cultural Foundation may come before him on appeal. But before development, by whichever developer is finally selected by the GLC, planning permission will be required, as will listed building consent for demolition, because the hall is in a conservation area. Therefore, objectors will have a further opportunity to put their case when such applications are made.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) asked for more resources for London, and said that it was unfair, because of the recent rate support settlement grant, to blame inner London for putting up its rates. Our point is that in inner London there is a difference in the rate increases between Conservative-controlled and Labour-controlled boroughs. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's solution is not as simple as might be thought.
The hon. Gentleman also complained that people with small children were


stuck in flats. That is a perceptive criticism of the way in which we have relied too much on the municipal sector to solve London's housing problems.

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Sir G. Young: Out of courtesy to those who have been here longer, I should try to make progress.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East mentioned gipsy sites. Our policy is to assist local authorities in the provision of an adequate number of licensed sites in their areas. To this end, we have proposed three main provisions, with the support of the local authority associations. First, we propose the continuation of the 100 per cent. grant to local authorities towards the capital cost of providing such sites. Secondly, we propose an extension of the existing provision which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to designate areas where he considers that an adequate provision of sites has been made. The designation requirements for London are being discussed by the Department with the London Boroughs Association.
Our third proposal is to enhance the enforcement powers mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) to overcome some existing legal difficulties concerning the service of notices and hearing of cases. The three proposals were included in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced in another place. When it was decided to reintroduce that Bill in this place, it was necessary to reduce its size to make it manageable for the remainder of the Session. In doing so we had reluctantly to drop two of these provisions and to retain only the grant provision. I am happy to say that that provision has been included in the Bill in Committee. The other proposals remain our policy. We shall seek a suitable opportunity to reintroduce them.
I refer hon. Members to a debate that took place on 6 March, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, set out in slightly more detail than I can today the Government's strategy on gipsies.

Mr. George Cunningham: I suggest that it would not add much time to the

consideration of the Bill if the three full provisions were to be reintroduced. I press that consideration on the hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. Young: I understand that there is a problem about the long title. It is very much a matter for hon. Members who are considering the Bill in Committee. They will read the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the suggestion that he made in his speech. It must be for the Committee further to debate the issue.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is for the Government.

Sir G. Young: It is a matter for Ministers as well, who will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Future resources for the urban programme were mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Resources for 1980–81 showed a slight increase in real terms over previous years. Allocations to partnership and programme authorities were the same for 1980–81 as for 1979–80. For authorities receiving support through the traditional urban programme, there has been an increase in resources for 1980–81. No decisions have yet been taken about detailed allocation beyond 1980–81. The fact that there is no separate PESC line is of no significance.
I know that many local authorities have had to make difficult decisions about their housing investment programme. That is because they have received substantially smaller capital allocations this year than those for which they hoped. This is not the time for a debate on the general state of the economy and the urgent need to reduce public expenditure that lies behind the allocations.
London has fared no worse than other parts of the country, receiving, as in previous years, over one-third of the national total. We have tried to ensure that the more realistic allocations that we have made to authorities are used to maximum effect. We believe that local authorities are the best judges of particular needs. We have introduced a single block allocation instead of the more restrictive three block allocation. Secondly, we have made it clear to local authorities that the encouragement of low-cost home ownership need have little or no effect on their HIP allocations, and that in some instances it will significantly boost the allocations.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davisrose——

Sir G. Young: I must try to make progress out of respect to hon. Members who have asked questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made a perceptive speech, as one would expect from someone who used to represent Acton. He spoke about his report, which I read the moment it appeared. I passed it to my wife, who spent three years as a member of ILEA and who has based her own budget arrangements on the ILEA system—spending exactly what she wants and precepting upon me. There is a slight absence of accountability.
I, too, welcome the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science of a comprehensive Government examination of local government arrangements for the provision, administration and financing of education in inner London. If my memory serves me right, there was meant to be a review under the London Government Act 1963. That review never took place. It is odd that Labour Members criticise our review against that background. I know that my hon. Friend's report, which I commend, must have influenced my right hon. and learned Friend in his decision to set up the group.
My right hon. and learned Friend has already received a wide range of representations from hon. Members and others both for and against the proposal to alter the current arrangements. The Government will be willing to consider any further written expressions of view and will take fully into account earlier representations made in the course of the present study as well as representations made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone blew out of the water the Labour Party's platform for next year's GLC elections.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made what I thought—I think that this view will be shared by others who know him well—was an uncharacteristically ill-tempered speech. I propose to write to him about the specific issues that he raised. He relied heavily on his local paper. We are all rather worried about his speech material should the provincial newspaper strike spread.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) raised the issue of whether, in view of recent violence on the underground, the British Transport Police should be amalgamated with the Metropolitan Police. Policing of the London Underground is a matter for the British Transport Police. However, the Metropolitan Police lend assistance when necessary. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport are holding a working conference on violence on public transport, on Tuesday 6 May. I understand that the problem of hooliganism on the London Underground—as highlighted by recent violent incidents—and possible remedies to it, are likely to be discussed. I shall draw my right hon. Friends' attentions to my hon. Friend's speech.
There are now more assaults per year on staff employed on London Transport's underground system than on the whole of the staff of British Rail. The problem on London Transport's buses is far worse than that on the Underground.
As one of the tallest hon. Members, I listened with mixed feelings to my hon. Friend's hymn of praise about a device called a compactor. Under section 24 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, waste disposal authorities have a duty to prepare, periodically revise and publicise a litter plan, in collaboration with other interests such as voluntary groups.
Of course, the Department of the Environment encourages the use of compactors, where they reduce the amount of waste to manageable proportions. However, there are no powers under the 1974 Act, or elsewhere, for central Government to compel authorities to use them. Unfortunately, present public expenditure constraints prevent us from implementing the full provisions of the Control of Pollution Act. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be opening a cleaner city pilot scheme in Westminster on Tuesday of next week. He will make a point of encouraging the greater use of compactors as part of that scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) spoke about the need for better transport links for docklands. I welcome this opportunity to make clear that the Government remain


committed to the broad need to get the transport links right. However, it is essential to arrive at solutions that match transport needs to the availability of resources. The interim report of the study of lower cost alternatives to the Jubilee line represents a step in the process of improving our understanding of the real costs and opportunities. The aim, shared by the GLC, is to arrive at a choice that is operationally feasible and realistically related to resources.
The proposals for the southern relief road are a matter for the GLC. That is the appropriate authority. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) spoke with feeling about planning blight. In many cases, London has been more planned against than planned for. There are far too many over-ambitious and unrealistic projects, which are unrelated to the needs of the community or to financial realities. I say that as a Minister who works in Alexander Fleming House, in the middle of the Elephant and Castle.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment assures me that steps have been taken to streamline planning procedures in London. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow made some pertinent criticisms about the establishment of a Docklands Urban Development Corporation. I wonder if those criticisms are shared by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has an equally legitimate right to speak on behalf of docklands, and who is deputy chairman designate of the corporation. There is no basis in the claim that the establishment of an urban development corporation will delay progress. The shadow corporation is being built up and preparations are being made, so that it will be able to take immediate and effective action on vesting day. In the interim period, it will build up links with local authorities. There is no reason why existing local authorities should defer schemes that are useful.
Many Opposition Members spoke about enterprise zones. I hope that they are only against enterprise zones, not enterprise. When I listened to some hon. Members, I had the feeling that they were against enterprise. In the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a proposal to set up about

six enterprise zones. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked tor details. Briefly, exemption will be given from development land tax and from industrial and commercial rates. There will be 100 per cent. capital allowances on industrial and commercial buildings, and a significantly relaxed planning regime. Exemption will be given from industrial development certificate requirements and from the scope of industrial training boards. The administration of other controls on development will be speeded up. However, there will be no relaxation in standards needed for health and safety or for pollution controls—which I hope deals with the point about sweat shops made earlier.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asked about infrastructure costs in enterprise zones. That is one of the issues to be taken into account in choosing sites. There is no indication of a lack of interest among local authorities in suggesting sites.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful for (he hon. Gentleman's reply, but is he prepared to say anything about Government contributions to infrastructure costs?

Sir G. Young: Discussions are taking place with local authority associations on the subject, but I understand that no decisions have yet been taken about the exact amounts required.
I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), but it was clearly effective in view of the reactions that I did hear from Labour Members. Since I and other Conservative councillors ceased to have control of Lambeth in 1971, the financial management of the borough has steadily deteriorated. In two years' time the electors of Lambeth will have the opportunity to re-elect a more responsible regime.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) attacked the RSG settlement, and I should like to say a word about that in a minute. He said quite a bit about the impact of changes on the personal social services. We have to reduce public expenditure, and personal social services cannot be exempt. The reduction in expenditure of 4 per cent. in 1980–81 compared with 1978–79 is not great in the light of the rapid growth in the 1970s. The planned level is almost double what it was 10 years ago. We have asked local


authorities to protect services for the most vulnerable, and they are seeking to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made an effective speech about the damage that can be done by heavy lorries, and spoke of the problems that many outer London boroughs face in losing employment.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) asked about land registers. We simply must make the best use of our land. Too much land is idle which could be better used, redeveloped or handed over to recreation. Land registers, which are provided for in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, are part of our drive to activate public land which is unused or under-used. The object is to expedite the disposal of such land. Putting it on a register will enable the general public and developers to know what land is available for resumed use or new development. The legislation includes a power for the Secretary of State to direct disposal of registered land where a case for its retention has not been made.
I should like to write to other hon. Members about the points that they raised, which were mainly constituency matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) injected a sharp dose of common sense, as we expect from him, and I believe that he spoke for us all in what he said about the role of the police at the Iranian Embassy.
I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) did not intend to give support to those who are, as I understand it, illegally occupying local authority accommodation in Wandsworth.
The economic prosperity of London is closely linked to that of the economy as a whole. The role of the Government is to create the environment and stimulus for the private sector to create new wealth and jobs. This year's Budget introduced many measures to assist small business men, who are so important to London, through changes in tax thresholds and allowances, We are taking steps to get the Government out of the private sector's hair by simplifying the planning system and easing the impact of company law.
We are pressing ahead to see that the best use is made of our land. The repeal of the Community Land Act and the introduction of the land register will do much to improve the use of this most precious resource.
We are also taking active steps to provide incentives towards the economic regeneration of run-down areas. The imaginative proposals announced in the Budget for enterprise zones are one example, and at least one of those zones might be in inner London. The Docklands Urban Development Corporation represents the most serious attempt yet to tackle the dereliction in docklands and realise the potential of the area.
Those are only a few examples of the measures that we are taking to tackle the underlying problems in London. The solution of those problems will do much to ease the difficulties that we face in providing services for the people of London.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: With your permission Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say how much we appreciate the helpful and courteous way in which the Minister has replied to the debate? We all have views and engage in arguments, but today we have had a useful opportunity to canvass the problems of London. I hope that our future debates will be conducted in the same way so that we can range over the issues and show the people of London that we in this House are aware of the difficulties and problems which they face and that we shall press all Governments, whatever their political persuasion, to provide special help for London.
We much appreciate the way in which the Minister handled our debate today.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the 10 motions relating to statutory instruments.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then I must put them separately.

INCOME TAX

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),

Question accordingly agreed to.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

INCOME TAX

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Bangladesh) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20 March.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of Egypt of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the draft Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Egypt) Order 1980, which draft was laid before this House on 20 March, an

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20 March—[Mr. Brooke.]

The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 12.

Division No. 280]
AYES
[2.30 pm


Alison, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Goodhew, Victor
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Goodlad, Alastair
Scott, Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Stainton, Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stanbrook, lvor


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stevens, Martin


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lamont, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Lawrence, Ivan
Thorne, Nell (llford South)


Bowden, Andrew
McCrindle, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Butler, Hon Adam
Major, John
Ward, John


Channon, Paul
Mates, Michael
Wheeler, John


Chapman, Sydney
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Whitney, Raymond


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Mellor, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Crouch, David
Newton, Tony



Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dykes, Hugh
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Eyre, Reginald
Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. David Waddington.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert



NOES


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Woolmer, Kenneth


Dubs, Alfred
Pavitt, Laurie



English, Michael
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Field, Frank
Soley, Clive
Mr. Reg Race and


Fitt, Gerard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Miss Jo Richardson.


Kerr, Russell

Order may be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20 March.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) (No. 1) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft


laid before this House on 20 March.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73 A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) (No. 2) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20 March.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sri Lanka) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20 March.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

TAXES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritance and on Gifts) (Netherlands) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

SERVICE PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Tom Benyon: The debate is about a vulnerable section of the public service—19,000 retired Service men. Many hon. Members receive mail from people who have suffered from what has been called the pension trough. I call it the yawning canyon.
I pay tribute to the Officers Pension Society, which has given me valuable help in preparing the debate. The people about whom I am talking are vulnerable because they are retired and have little or no bargaining power. Service men who retired in 1975, before pensions and incomes were pegged by the last Labour Government, are fine; their pensions march on with inflation. However, those who retired between 1975 and 1978, during the pensions and wages freeze, are much worse off than their analogues who retired earlier and whose pensions are index-linked.
A sea of grotesque anomalies has developed. There are many examples of what might be called constipated bureaucracy. I can name only a few because of the time available. One example which comes to mind is that of Brigadier Carter, a constituent. He is in a peculiar position because a colonel who worked for him, who is the same age, had the same length of service and who retired six months later than he will be £6,300 better off over the next four years than my constituent brigadier. A staff sergeant who retired in March 1978 is 32 per cent. worse off in pension terms than a staff sergeant who retired a week later.
Another constituent, Air Commodore Bob Martin, was persuaded to stay "in the public interest." It was said that it was impossible to spring him from his post. He was prevailed upon to stay. He put service and his country before his own interests. As a result, he is £2,000 a year worse off than his analogues. After many representations he was told that it was impossible to change the position. He met a stone wall of indifference. The 19,000 people of whom I speak did not join the Services to take part in a peculiar lottery for their pension rights.
I shall rehearse the understandable Government attitude and the way in which they have met the protestations. They say that it is not their fault but that of the iniquities of Labour Government wages and pensions schemes in previous years. I agree—it is an inheritance. We must sort it out.
The Government argue that the Service men are the beneficiaries of an index-linked pension scheme and are protected in a way in which people retired from the private sector cannot protect themselves. However, the index-linked pension scheme is of great value only if inflation marches on as it is. If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, inflation drops to under 5 per cent. in the next three years, index-linking will be of limited value only and will be overtaken by the benefits of occupational pension schemes.
The Government also argue that the people we are discussing have received precisely their entitlement—not a penny more, nor a penny less—and that they have stuck scrupulously to the letter of the law.
The last argument, which has not actually been articulated, but which I sense coming through the ether, is that these people are retired, they have no lobby or power and that they are no real embarrasment because they do not even usually live in marginal seats, so why is their case more important than many other cases of inequity that we are seeking to sort out?
Why should one read cynicism into this attitude? Possibly it is because other sections of the public sector which have found themselves in this position have secured special deals. I am a great supporter of the Post Office, but because it

is an industry it has managed to do such a deal entitled "Dynamics of 1976–77 pensions " in which the injustices of the past have been corrected.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, when challenged on this by my constituents, said that these decisions are matters for the industries concerned, not the Government. That means that because these Services have no lobby and no union, and because they are not an industry, they will suffer. Therefore, the message must go out to all people who are considering joining the Army, the Navy or the Air Force " Do not join them. Joint the Post Office, because it has better bargaining power when it comes to the crunch."
The people I am talking about are dedicated and have put in a lifetime of service. They are not business men, not the sort of people who read the fine print to rely on the letter of the law. They are people who have served—to use a florid, but accurate phrase—their king and country in the past. They have served in the spirit of the law and did not realise that they would have to end up looking at the letter of the law. They are people who trusted us because they could be trusted by us. They are people we needed in time of trouble. They are in trouble now and they need us.
I believe that as a mark of a civilised Government my right hon. and hon. Friends should honour their moral obligations to their trusted servants. I cannot believe that it is the style of our Government to deny them equity and to justify it by strict adherence to the letter of the law.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to this debate, replied to me on this subject on 21 December, and I found his reply worrying. He talked about being " sympathetic", which is splendid, and he blamed the last Government, which was right. He used the word " unfortunate ", and I agree. He used the words
 in accordance with the rules ",
and he ended up by saying " No ".
I say with a great deal of respect to my hon. Friend that
 fine words butter no parsnips 
with the 19,000 people for whom I am speaking this afternoon.
Perhaps I may offer some arguments as to why I believe this to be important. It is not just that I feel sorry for these people, because £100 million is a lot of money and it will take a lot more than sorrow and sympathy to get that sort of money out of the Treasury. We need to explain precisely why we should right this wrong. I believe, first, that it should be righted because there is a manifesto pledge that we in the Conservative Party regard external defence as being of great importance and that we should pay the people in the Armed Forces well. I believe that we should regard as being important not only people in the present and the future, but people in the past, with whom they are inextricably linked. We must pay as much respect in terms of pay to those who have served as to those who still serve, because those who still serve will note with what short shrift people have been treated in the past.
I believe that if this problem is not dealt with fairly now the following may happen. The message of inequity will travel, and the message must be thus: " Leave the Services when there are no wages or pensions constraints. If any Government look like imposing constraints in the future, for goodness sake go with the cash in hand ". The next message that will travel through the ether is " If you are asked to stay in the national interest because your country needs you, smile cynically, take the cash and run ". The third message will be " If anyone in authority says 'Stay, we will look after you and ensure that you do not suffer', do not believe them; take the money and run".
I know that £100 million is a lot to ask for at this stage and so I ask my hon. Friend to indicate that he will review the problem overall as speedily as possible and agree that when the country can afford it the inequity will be righted. Secondly, will he please right the problems faced by the widows of people who have suffered this injustice, and do so immediately? They are suffering in exactly the same way and may be suffering hardship. I should also like him to right the wrong which I believe has been clearly suffered by those who are asked to stay, and can prove that they were asked to do so, in the national interest.
I should like those wrongs righted now. I cannot believe that a Tory Government will ignore reasonable pleadings from those who gave unstintingly of their loyalty in the past, or that the Government will cynically give them short shrift now. On their behalf, I plead that the Government give them a fair deal and right the wrongs of the pensions lottery by which thousands of my constituents and constituents of my colleagues throughout the country find themselves penalised.

Mr. John Major: This brief debate highlights a considerable injustice to pensioners in the public service. I congratulate wholeheartedly my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) on bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
I have received a large number of representations from retired Service men in my constituency who simply cannot understand why neither the previous Labour Government nor the present Conservative Government are prepared to correct a pension situation which they regard—and I agree with them—as being both unfair and indefensible. They are specifically aggrieved on two quite clear counts: first, because their gratuity upon retirement and their subsequent pension have been seriously reduced as a result of their retirement during the period of the Labour Government's pay restraint, and, secondly, for the same reason, that an anomalous pension position now exists between retired Service men of similar seniority and service simply because of the date at which they retired.
They regard that, if I may use the term used by my hon. Friend, as turning pensions provision into a lottery. I can illustrate the point graphically by referring to a letter from a retired squadron leader in my constituency. He retired in March 1977 during the period of pay restraint, and he recently compared his present pension position with a colleague who retired in March 1973, before the period of pay restraint. Both officers were of equivalent rank. Both had the same reckonable service to within two months. Both commuted the same percentage of their pension. In equity, one would have thought that their pensions should have been identical. In fact, my constituent today receives a pension of £159 a month whereas his colleague


receives £262 a month. Yet my constituent retired four years later and, consequently, if anything, one would have expected him to have received a larger pension than his fellow officer.
We understand how that absurd situation arose. It is a grotesque result of the Labour Goverment's incomes policy, which restricted pay but at the same time permitted the continuation of index-linking to pension increases. The absurdities which have resulted from that paradox have not subsequently been adjusted and are now manifold. Service men who retired under the pension codes of 1976 and 1977 now receive less pension, rank for rank, than those of similar seniority and service who retired outside that period, whether it was before 1976 or after 1978. That is a curious and difficult situation to tolerate. But there is an even greater absurdity than that immediately at hand.
One constituent has written to tell me that his present pension would have been greater than it is had he retired in December 1974 instead of continuing in service until December 1977. That is total and unprecedented nonsense. I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is nowhere at all, either in the public or private service, where one can extend one's service and as a direct result reduce one's pension entitlement and also, perhaps, in due course, the pension entitlement of one's widow.
I fully understand the problems of restraint on cash at the present time. I fully appreciate the problems which the Government face. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that the Minister will point out that that anomaly stretches right across the public service and that it is not simply restricted to Service men. I understand that point of view very clearly, but I am not attracted to it, and neither are the Service men in my constituency. I quote from a letter that I received from a retired squadron leader:
 It does seem incongruous that the Armed Forces pensioners should now be grouped as being in the same position as all other retired public servants, when throughout my service the Armed Forces' pay was frequently held down ' in the interest of the country'. We were always considered to be different then, yet now we are considered on an equal basis.
It is not necessary for us to agree with all those sentiments, but we appreciate the sense of injustice that underlies them.
That sense of grievance has been enhanced by another factor. Many of the Service men who are now suffering from this pensions trough were encouraged by fellow and senior officers to retire during the period of pay restraint in the belief that it would be beneficial for them to do so. I shall give a practical illustration of that. A flight lieutenant in my constituency wrote to me as follows:
 I was due for retirement on my 55th birthday, 29 May 1978. I was advised by the RAF pay agents, my superior officer, the accountant officer … to apply for premature voluntary retirement, to take place before 1 April 1978. This I did, and retired on 30 March 1978, and received a pension of £2,696, which was increased on my 55th birthday to £3,027. However, the revised pension issued on 1 April 1978 was £3,518 for persons serving on that date. This I missed by two days. I therefore lost £491 on my pension and £1,473 on my terminal grant through accepting this advice. I am sure that the individual officers concerned acted in all good faith.'
I believe that the Minister understands those points, and that he has personal sympathy for them. Therefore, I ask him to do three things. I ask him to accept that Service men, by virtue of their profession, are in a special position and should be treated accordingly. Secondly, I ask him to promise that the door is not closed on justice for these pensioners and their widows. Thirdly, I ask him to examine this anomaly and take action to correct it. I am prepared to pass on to the Minister all the correspondence and evidence that I have amassed, and I hope that in his reply he will be able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and myself the assurances that we seek.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) on his important speech. I shall study both speeches with the greatest care.
I shall speak quickly because I have many points to cover, and I should like to deal with the serious case advanced by my hon. Friends about the position of those who retired from the Armed Forces between 1976 and 1979, and whose pensions have been depressed by the effects of incomes policy. The Government are


well aware of the sense of injustice felt by pensioners affected in this way, and I am grateful for the opportunity to explain more fully the Government's position.
I have listened with great interest and care to what my hon. Friends have had to say on this difficult question. This, as they both recognised, is a tragic by-product of the previous Administration's incomes policy. I have every sympathy with those who have been affected. It arises because the great majority of Armed Forces and other public service pensions are based on the salary earned by the pensioner in the year before his retirement.
Between 1976 and 1979 the salaries of all the public services—including those of the Armed Forces—were held back by incomes policy. As a result, the basic pensions of officers retiring during that period were similarly depressed. This, of course, applies also to policemen, firemen, nurses, doctors, civil servants, local government officers and a wide variety of people in the public sector. They are in exactly the same position as Army officers and other ranks. I shall consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire said about the special position of the Services, but I must also consider the policemen, firemen and others in the public sector who are in a similar position.
Since the present arrangements for increasing public service pensions maintain but do not increase the real value of the pension at the time of retirement, these pensions will never catch up with those received by officers retiring immediately before or after that particular period.
Thus we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, a pensions trough between 1976 and 1978. It is, interestingly enough, preceded by a similar but opposite pensions peak between 1971 and 1975. The height of the peak and the depth of the trough vary between public services and with different ranks and grades within each public service. But the broad picture is much the same. Those who retired in the early 1970s have done better than average; those who retired between 1976 and 1978 or 1979 have done worse.
Those such as Brigadier Carter who are in the latter group feel a very understandable sense of grievance. But I must, in

fairness to others, emphasise that they are no worse off than the many thousands of people who retired in the early 1960s and who, despite pension increases, have not caught up with those who retired later. I recall debates on this topic during my early days in this House on a number of occasions.
As I have explained, pensioners throughout the public services have been affected in a similar way. I do not think, therefore, that we can look at the Armed Forces or any single service in isolation. We have had to examine the effect of any decisions in relation to the whole of the public services. This inevitably means that the cost of any remedial measures would be far greater than it would seem by looking at the Armed Forces alone.
I must make clear one point that was referred to, quite correctly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, in case there is any misunderstanding on the part of those who may read what I say. There is no doubt that pensioners who retired during the period concerned are receiving their full legal entitlement. I think that my hon. Friend made that clear. These entitlements are laid down clearly in the rules of the schemes and have been honoured in full.
I stress this because it has been suggested by some that those who pay public service pensions have been guilty of maladministration by not acting to recalculate them to alleviate the effect of incomes policy. I refute that in clear terms, as there is no legal power under which they could have done so.
The Government have, of course, considered very carefuly indeed whether an alteration in the law is justified in these circumstances. I have received representations from individual pensioners, trade unions and pensioners' organisations. I have received a deputation and many representations from the national staff side of the Civil Service. I have looked at many possible forms of remedial action.
I have to bear in mind that pensioners are receiving their full legal entitlement. I have the greatest sympathy, and I fully appreciate that the pensioners affected feel a sense of injustice that their pensionable pay is lower than they might have hoped. That can happen in other circumstances—for example, when someone has to retire just before a major pay award. Such a person is in almost exactly


the same position as someone whose pension is affected by incomes policy. Both have fallen on the wrong side of a dividing line.
What is being sought is a retrospective improvement in terms and conditions of employment. This is at a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon made clear, public service pension arrangements—and especially the inflation-proofing of them—are already seen in some quarters as unduly generous. Indeed, some people on the Conservative Benches think that. This is, of course, something that the independent inquiry, announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Budget Speech, might be expected to look at, but, in the circumstances, further improvements in already inflation-proofed pensions would need to be considered very carefully indeed.
The second point that I have to bear in mind is whether it is practical to alleviate the effects of incomes policy. I can assure the House that it is extremely difficult administratively to identify all the pensioners concerned and the precise extent to which they were adversely affected. Incomes policy in that period was voluntary, not statutory. Not every person's salary was affected in the same way at the same time. There were wide differences from public service to public service and from grade to grade, but I do not make that my major point.
The major point is, of course, the cost of any form of remedial action. It has been suggested that one possible remedy would be to base the pension on the level of salary earned in a previous year of service, uprated to its present-day value. That is called " pre-award dynamism ". If someone had retired on 1 April 1977, for example, he could have his pension based on the salary he earned in the year ending 31 March 1975 uprated by the increase in prices. Unfortunately, the annual cost of applying this form of " pre-award dynamism " would approach £100 million for all public service pensioners who have retired since 1 April 1974.
There are other variations. Some are even more expensive and others less. Any remedial action that does not penalise other pensioners would be formidably expensive in the present economic situation. We have had substantially to reduce the burden of public expenditure,

entailing many difficult decisions. In those circumstances I wonder whether the taxpayer would think it right to make such a significant addition to expenditure on public service pensions.
I have also considered whether action could be taken without increasing expenditure, which has been suggested on other occasions. Several options have been explored. However, if the expenditure is not to be met by the Exchequer it can only be met by other groups of pensioners, which would reduce the real income of some public service pensioners, perhaps quite substantially, in order to finance increases for others. I do not know whether that would be welcome to many.
To give an example, a staff sergeant who retired in 1975 after a full career might have to suffer an ultimate reduction in his living standard of up to 15 per cent. To some extent such a reduction would go to finance increases for people with pensions bigger than his. If time was available plenty of other examples could be produced.
Equalising measures of that kind would therefore have to be related in some way to differing levels of income, which would create great difficulties. If those with small pensions were excluded, a heavier burden would fall on others. The House will agree that it would be acutely difficult to decide who should gain and who should lose, and by how much. For example, those who had bought added years in public service pension schemes on the assumption that arrangements would continue as at present could argue that the terms of the arrangements had been altered retrospectively.
I hope that the House will accept that I well understand the sense of grievance of Brigadier Carter and others about their pensions and the resulting bitterness that they feel. Great efforts are normally made to ensure fairness and equity in all the public service pension schemes. However, in this area I do not remember a time when it has been possible to achieve fairness. In my early days in the House it was always the earlier pensioners who suffered. Their pensions were increased from time to time in line with the cost of living, but more recent pensions were based on salaries going up at a faster rate. The


newer pensions always drew ahead of the earlier ones, and older pensioners felt a deep sense of injustice.
Between 1976 and 1978 that historical relationship was briefly reversed by incomes policy, and earlier pensioners did rather better. Since then the old relationship has reappeared. The only way to resolve the problem is to increase pensions in line with the pay of the former post, known as " parity " in the pensions world. That is an ideal solution, but one which unfortunately would be far too costly to contemplate.
I assure my hon. Friend, as I have assured those who have been to see me, that no effort has been spared in exploring possible remedial measures, but there is no easy answer and it would be wrong of me to pretend that there was. I detest raising false hopes. I would far prefer to tell the truth to those affected. If money were available we might be able to come to a different conclusion. It is a difficult situation and there are grotesque anomalies.
I have looked at the question of separating special groups who have been treated particularly harshly, but it would be most unfair to help some and not others. I have also looked at the question of widows. Their pensions are calculated as a proportion of the pension that the man was receiving or would have received at the time that he died.

The same problems arise as in the case of the pensioner.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Post Office. I have no control over the Post Office's pension arrangements. They are not a precedent for the public services, and as far as I know no such action has been taken in the public services.
I wish I could help. I wish that the situation had never arisen. It is one of many lessons in the unfortunate side effects of a rigid incomes policy, which affects not only the pay but the pensions of those unlucky enough to be retiring at that time. It affects many people in the public sector. Not only the Armed Services are affected. Many are equally concerned outside the Armed Forces.
I very much regret that I have been un able to help today. I shall study with the greatest care everything that my hon. Friends have said. If my hon. Friends care to send me any further evidence, I shall be only too pleased to consider it at any time. However, I do not wish to raise false hopes——

The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 6 May 1980, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 2 April.